Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Discuss local, regional, state, federal, and world politics. Keep it classy, Cleveland.

Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » June 27th, 2018, 11:54 pm

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/06/27/big-labor-loses-in-latest-scotus-ruling-n2494972
Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS Ruling
By Cortney O'Brien, Posted: Jun 27, 2018 10:15 AM

The Supreme Court has ruled against Big Labor in Janus v. AFSCME. The justices were 5-4 in favor of Mark Janus, an Illinois Department of Healthcare and Human Services employees, deciding that unions can not force public sector workers to pay union dues. These “agency fees,” the Court concluded, are a violation of employees' First Amendment rights.

Janus argued that the $45 monthly fee to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees he was forced to pay was akin to "forced speech." Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Court's opinion, agreed.

"Compelling individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable violates that cardinal constitutional command, and in most contexts, any such effort would be universally condemned," Alito wrote.
Janus is now considered the most significant court decision affecting collective bargaining rights in decades.

President Trump cheered the Court's decision.
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Supreme Court rules in favor of non-union workers who are now, as an example, able to support a candidate of his or her choice without having those who control the Union deciding for them. Big loss for the coffers of the Democrats!

10:11 AM - Jun 27, 2018
88K
32K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, and EdChoice, a national nonprofit organization that promotes state-based educational choice programs, were just as pleased.
“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for rights of public-sector employees coast-to-coast that will free millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees from mandatory union payments," Mix said in a statement. "While this victory represents a massive step forward in the fight to protect American workers from forced unionism, that fight is far from over. Union officials and their allies in state government have already taken steps to prevent workers from exercising their rights under the Janus decision, while millions of private sector workers in states without Right to Work protections are still forced to pay union fees or else be fired. Further, workers of all stripes continue to have their freedoms of association violated by being forced under union monopoly ‘representation’ against their will. So while we celebrate today’s decision, there remains much work to do to both enforce and expand upon this historic victory over coercive unionism.”
“Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of teachers and other public sector employees, recognizing their right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to decide whether to join or otherwise support a union," said EdChoice Vice President of Legal Affairs Leslie Hiner. "Just as we support the right of parents to choose how and where their children are educated, we support the right of teachers to choose whether to support a union at the schools where they teach our children."


Back in March of 2015, Wobbly posted "Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signs right to work bill"
Much of what was discussed immediately after the SCOTUS ruling was discussed back in Wobbly's thread.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3295&p=38443&hilit=+forced+union+dues#p38338
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » June 28th, 2018, 12:26 pm

It was not a big loss, but it reflects how the court is moving to the right and takes as the Constitution the rather rigid ideology of the right.

I think our late friend Wobbly also said that if you do not want to join a union you should not reap the benefits of union membership. In other words, you can be fired at will, given a lower wage and a whole number of things.

The point is a vote against labor is a vote against the American people. It is a vote for oligarchy and the powerful, for management. This might push apathetic Americans off their couches, but it probably will not.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » June 28th, 2018, 5:15 pm

leftyg wrote:It was not a big loss, but it reflects how the court is moving to the right and takes as the Constitution the rather rigid ideology of the right.

I think our late friend Wobbly also said that if you do not want to join a union you should not reap the benefits of union membership. In other words, you can be fired at will, given a lower wage and a whole number of things.

The point is a vote against labor is a vote against the American people. It is a vote for oligarchy and the powerful, for management. This might push apathetic Americans off their couches, but it probably will not.


It was a loss to the Unions. And it was a loss to the DNC who received a lot of Donor money from the Unions. You can characterize it as not a big loss, but if it was not a big loss, then union dues must not have been a big deal to begin with. ;) There are others who thought that this was a big loss. I am not going to weigh the matter. I do remember Wobbly saying what he did but I thought that the benefits offered by unions was over sold and the loss to the workers was worse than the professed benefits that the Unions advertised. I started to read Wobbly's post, but after the first couple of reply's It started to all come back to me. It is interesting to note that it does not seem as if your position has changed much since that thread while the ruling did not surprise me.
You said the point is a vote against labor is a vote against the American people. (?) No it is not a vote against the American people. The American people have their liberty affirmed, their freedom to choose is now more securely placed in labor. Previously they did not have many favorable options as I previously mentioned in Wobbly's thread. Since it is not likely that your interested in what Justice Thomas had to say, maybe you would be more open to what Justice Kennedy said.
I also think that your missing the shift in attitudes from workers since our dad's, the changes we have experienced, and the way the millennial's are looking at this. I don't think it takes much for us to go out and vote; but the actions of the younger generation seem to coalesce around their freedom to move around.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » June 28th, 2018, 11:39 pm

It was a loss to the Unions. And it was a loss to the DNC who received a lot of Donor money from the Unions. You can characterize it as not a big loss, but if it was not a big loss, then union dues must not have been a big deal to begin with. ;) There are others who thought that this was a big loss. I am not going to weigh the matter. I do remember Wobbly saying what he did but I thought that the benefits offered by unions was over sold and the loss to the workers was worse than the professed benefits that the Unions advertised. I started to read Wobbly's post, but after the first couple of reply's It started to all come back to me. It is interesting to note that it does not seem as if your position has changed much since that thread while the ruling did not surprise me.
The point is that unions are a bargaining unit for workers. When the Supreme court rules against them they are siding with management. Look if you believe in free market economy, you have to believe that workers have to have an organization that secures their rights to counter the infrastructure of the corporation. Otherwise there is a fateful imbalance that favors the powerful. I stand with the little against the powerful for precisely the reason that they do not need more control they have to relinquish it to the workers. Otherwise and oligarchy emerges..

You said the point is a vote against labor is a vote against the American people. (?) No it is not a vote against the American people. The American people have their liberty affirmed, their freedom to choose is now more securely placed in labor. Previously they did not have many favorable options as I previously mentioned in Wobbly's thread. Since it is not likely that your interested in what Justice Thomas had to say, maybe you would be more open to what Justice Kennedy said.
I also think that your missing the shift in attitudes from workers since our dad's, the changes we have experienced, and the way the millennial's are looking at this. I don't think it takes much for us to go out and vote; but the actions of the younger generation seem to coalesce around their freedom to move around.
yes I said that. If it is not a vote against the American people, prove it. I can tell you that since the Reagan Revolution (usurpation might be a better word) the wages of working people have gone down and those of elites have skyrocketed. https://www.epi.org/publication/top-1-p ... th-rising/ Some of your points may have validity but this over whelming difference is stunning. Union participation has declined as hove wages.
Attachments
150424-inequality-USA-business-insider-incomes-since-1980-1024x768.png
150424-inequality-USA-business-insider-incomes-since-1980-1024x768.png (139.81 KiB) Viewed 2953 times
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » June 29th, 2018, 8:25 am

[/quote][/color] The point is that unions are a bargaining unit for workers. That is an accurate description for the Unions. From the city's perspective, the Unions are organized extortion. From the consumer's perspective, the union's products or services means that they have to spend more money if they use them.When the Supreme court rules against them STOP!Why didn't you say: "When the Supreme court rules for workers?"they are siding with management. STOP I thought that the Supreme court was to settle disputes in the law? And I thought the Supreme Court was to use our Constitution and the laws with impartiality? (Lady Justice with her blindfold holding the scales to measure the strength's of a case's support and oppostion)Look if you believe in free market economy and I do , you have to believe that workers have to have an organization that secures their rights to counter the infrastructure of the corporation. The organization that workers (all workers) have that secures their rights is our legal system. And I believe in that.And since I have worked in and for many companies that are union free, that are successful, that do not run roughshod over their employees, and where there are employees who have stayed with the company for 20,25, and 30 years, I have first-hand observations and evidence that ALL workers do not need unions to protect them, to protect their interests, or for anything. Otherwise there is a fateful imbalance that favors the powerful. I stand with the little against the powerful STOP You stand for discrimination. You approve of an elite group and favor their receiving of wages and benefits that all workers do not get. And you do not give a damn about the negative consequences that the cities and those that are not in the union suffer. So stop pretending that you stand for the little guy because that is a liefor precisely the reason that they do not need more control they have to relinquish it to the workers. Otherwise and oligarchy emerges..

[/color][/quote] yes I said that. If it is not a vote against the American people, prove it.

The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of unions--was unchanged at 10.7 percent in 2017, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers
belonging to unions, at 14.8 million in 2017, edged up by 262,000 from 2016.

https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm
This statistic shows the not seasonally adjusted number of full-time employees in the United States from 1990 to 2017. In 2017, about 125.97 million people were employed on a full-time basis.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1NDCM_enUS770US770&ei=mx02W4SIDqzc5gKThqOgCA&q=number+of+employees+in+the+united+states&oq=Number+of+employees+in+the+Unit&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0j0i22i30k1l6j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1l2.35560.77389.0.80578.67.32.2.12.13.0.272.3397.14j14j1.29.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..31.36.3357...33i22i29i30k1j0i67k1j0i131k1j0i10k1.0.WDbidJxvTnU ?, hey I just copied the URL, the number of "full-time employeed workers in the United states last year came from a Google search.
Now just using the estimated full time employees of the United States for 2017, and subtracting the number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions in 2017, we find that there were at least 111.17 million more non-union employees in the United States in 2017 than union employees. And since 111.17 million workers were not in the unions, any vote (were referring to the Justices on the Supreme court votes)that deals with unions, has no effect on them. And if it has no effect, no impact on these American people,The Supreme court ruling cannot be against these American people. And of the 14.8 million union workers in 2017, how many do you think will be in favor of this ruling?
[/quote]
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » June 29th, 2018, 9:57 am

That is an accurate description for the Unions. From the city's perspective, the Unions are organized extortion. From the consumer's perspective, the union's products or services means that they have to spend more money if they use them
That is the cities propective, and it is wrong. It is self-serving and biased. Goverments should stay out of worker-employer fights and not side with management. It is a basic tenet of fascism this hostility toward labor https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html*

Products may cost more if management decides to give themselves huge undeserved bonuses. The salaries of the people on top are less justified than the wages of the bulk of society.

Lawrence Britt writes in point 10:
*Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

STOP!Why didn't you say: "When the Supreme court rules for workers? Your right wing pals on this court rule with power, and against people. You don;t know how this works do you?

STOP I thought that the Supreme court was to settle disputes in the law? And I thought the Supreme Court was to use our Constitution and the laws with impartiality? (Lady Justice with her blindfold holding the scales to measure the strength's of a case's support and oppostion They are supposed to be impartial, but they are not. They do not serve the Constitution; they serve their right wing ideology and are disgraceful jurists.

You say you believe in the free market when you mutter and I do. Then how can you oppose the power of a union to be a vigorous unit defending the rights of workers? The point is the employer has this immense infrastructure at his or her disposal, but a worker is not supposed to have somebody who knows his or her rights and will defend them? This country would work better if the people at the bottom had more money and the people at the top had a little less because the funds were divided more honestly.

You further palaverate The organization that workers (all workers) have that secures their rights is our legal system. And I believe in that.And since I have worked in and for many companies that are union free, that are successful, that do not run roughshod over their employees, and where there are employees who have stayed with the company for 20,25, and 30 years, I have first-hand observations and evidence that ALL workers do not need unions to protect them, to protect their interests, or for anything. All workers need a union or a bargaining unti to protect them. Otherwise employers will run roughshod over them and decide their pay or what is comfortable for the employer. There has to be a bargaining process.

STOP You stand for discrimination. You approve of an elite group and favor their receiving of wages and benefits that all workers do not get. And you do not give a damn about the negative consequences that the cities and those that are not in the union suffer. So stop pretending that you stand for the little guy because that is a lieStop it yourself! I am not prejudiced. Don't put up a straw man for me. I am not the prejudice one in this debate; you are! I want all workers to get justice, the same as the people at the top. The negative consequence those not in unions endure is not the union's fault; it is the employers insatiable greed and meanness. And Michaels, you are the only liar in this debate, and sadly, you are lying to yourself, probably over a lifetime of being dumped on by penny pinching bosses, and to stay sane, you have to justify it with a lie.

And speaking of lies, you tell a great big fat one right here:
The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of unions--was unchanged at 10.7 percent in 2017, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers
belonging to unions, at 14.8 million in 2017, edged up by 262,000 from 2016.
Good Lord. You compare two years after the horse has long gotten out of the barn. In 1980, union membership stood at 25%; today it is just over ten percent (that part you are right about) http://economistsview.typepad.com/econo ... lined.html So stop sculpting lies. I dismantle them with great alacrity.
400px-Union_membership_in_us_1930-2010.png
400px-Union_membership_in_us_1930-2010.png (34.24 KiB) Viewed 2947 times
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby hmmmmm » June 29th, 2018, 12:23 pm

leftyg wrote:It was not a big loss, but it reflects how the court is moving to the right and takes as the Constitution the rather rigid ideology of the right.

I think our late friend Wobbly also said that if you do not want to join a union you should not reap the benefits of union membership. In other words, you can be fired at will, given a lower wage and a whole number of things.

The point is a vote against labor is a vote against the American people. It is a vote for oligarchy and the powerful, for management. This might push apathetic Americans off their couches, but it probably will not.


Not to change the subject, but..... "our late friend Wobbly" ????????
Did we lose Wobbly ?
The worst form of inequality, is to try to make unequal things equal ~~~~~ Aristotle

You can't cure poverty by creating more dependency ~~~~~

"Science flies you to the moon. Radical Islamists fly you in to buildings."
~~~~~ hmmmmm
hmmmmm
 
Posts: 761
Joined: March 2nd, 2011, 1:46 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » June 29th, 2018, 12:51 pm

Not to change the subject, but..... "our late friend Wobbly" ????????
Did we lose Wobbly ?
Yes , I thought all the regulars knew. He passed away in November, 2017 at age 68.

I am not at liberty to give personal information about him, his real name or where he lived; it would not be right. I put up a thread about him and asked where was he and had anyone heard about him. The thread was on the discussion page, I found out myself why he had not posted. He was dying. He never said anything,or complained. But when I saw the name and it was from the area he lived in, and the name was not all that common, I knew it was wobbly.

About two years ago when I had ablation surgery (the one Tito Francona had) he was kind enough to put up a thread about " LeftyG?" Luckily, I was only down a few weeks, but I appreciated the gesture. I was sad that when I returned his gesture, the outcome was not the same. He is gone, and he will be missed.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Scorpion » June 29th, 2018, 7:21 pm

Lefty, this is in regards to public sector unions, not private.
Taxpayers are hostages to the public union demands.
A man wants to have sex or he doesn't.
If he doesn't, its like trying to put a marshmallow into a parking meter.
Scorpion
 
Posts: 4692
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 2:58 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » June 29th, 2018, 8:07 pm

Not for long scorpion. The constitutionality of Janus settled. The precedent will be applied to private sector.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » June 29th, 2018, 9:22 pm

leftyg wrote:
That is an accurate description for the Unions. From the city's perspective, the Unions are organized extortion. From the consumer's perspective, the union's products or services means that they have to spend more money if they use them
That is the cities propective, and it is wrong. It is self-serving and biased. Goverments should stay out of worker-employer fights and not side with management. It is a basic tenet of fascism this hostility toward labor https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html* [color=#FF0000]'It is a basic characteristic of stupidity, your stupidity to claim everyone who disagrees with you as wrong. If you don't want the government to be involved, then quit running to them every time your snowflake world crumbles. Stop calling on your congressional reps, and I am sure that YOUR WORLD will do just fine. California, Illinois, New York are all just doing fine with their citizen relocation program. And don't worry about the restaurants closing down, that only gives that great filmmaker Michael Moore footage for his anti-trump documentary[/color]. You live in your own little bubble where fascism and oligarchs never die, and everybody is against you and your liberal butt heads.

Products may cost more if management decides to give themselves huge undeserved bonuses. The salaries of the people on top are less justified than the wages of the bulk of society. But the salaries of those in the Union are always justified aren't they?


Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed . What fascist government. Where was your cries and whining under OBama? That authoritarian was the closes thing this country has ever had to a dictator He ignored the constitution, and congress whenever he felt like it. The Unions that have been dying have basically killed themselves. But you go ahead and cry

STOP!Why didn't you say: "When the Supreme court rules for workers? Your right wing pals on this court rule with power, and against people. You didn't complain when the court ruled for The ACA did you. Where were all your fascists and oligarch boogeymen then? You don;t know how this works do you? Why yes I do. One side is happy, and your side is perpetually unhappy. Whine away little boy.

STOP I thought that the Supreme court was to settle disputes in the law? And I thought the Supreme Court was to use our Constitution and the laws with impartiality? (Lady Justice with her blindfold holding the scales to measure the strength's of a case's support and oppostion They are supposed to be impartial, but they are not. They are only impartial when you disagree with their ruling Too bad, grab another box of Kleenix.They do not serve the Constitution; they serve their right wing ideology and are disgraceful jurists. They are not disgraceful jurists. Well at least most of them aren't.
But on the topic of disgraceful, your posts always come to mind

You say you believe in the free market when you mutter and I do. Then how can you oppose the power of a union to be a vigorous unit defending the rights of workers? The point is the employer has this immense infrastructure at his or her disposal, but a worker is not supposed to have somebody who knows his or her rights and will defend them? This country would work better if the people at the bottom had more money and the people at the top had a little less because the funds were divided more honestly. You never leave your class envy very far from your mouth or your keyboard do you.
There will always be a gap between workers (which you ignore), and owners but how do you account for sports, and Hollywood where some athletes have more money than their owners? Or how about some actors being paid more money than the film director and some actors have earned more money than films that flopped at the box office. Hey Mr. Big mouth teacher, do you want to split your salary with the worker at a nearby theater concession stand? What are you a fascist?


You further palaverate The organization that workers (all workers) have that secures their rights is our legal system. And I believe in that.And since I have worked in and for many companies that are union free, that are successful, that do not run roughshod over their employees, and where there are employees who have stayed with the company for 20,25, and 30 years, I have first-hand observations and evidence that ALL workers do not need unions to protect them, to protect their interests, or for anything. All workers need a union or a bargaining unti to protect them. Obviously not because not everyone is in a union. The people not in unions have what is called a mouth, and they use that to "bargain" with their employer. Otherwise employers will run when is that?
When will employers run roughshod over them. Gosh if the Union employees really believed that then you would think that they would stay with the union for protection. So tell us why are they leaving the unions?
You brought up the size of the unions back in Reagan, and the population of our country is much larger now. So why are the unions shrinking? Go ahead and ignore that and just use another ad hominen attack against me, or whoever is your scapegoat for the moment.
roughshod over them and decide their pay or what is comfortable for the employer. There has to be a bargaining process. Obviously you think that if your not in a union then there is no bargaining process. Well then maybe its a reasoning process that is missing and that is why those ex-union workers left. Yea, that must be it. Only the Union workers who stayed in the union have a clear functioning reasoning process. Well not everybody in a union. Because your in a teacher's union aren't you? And your reasoning process left the foundation long ago.

STOP You stand for discrimination. You approve of an elite group and favor their receiving of wages and benefits that all workers do not get. And you do not give a damn about the negative consequences that the cities and those that are not in the union suffer. So stop pretending that you stand for the little guy because that is a lieStop it yourself! I am not prejudiced. Don't put up a straw man for me. I am not the prejudice one in this debate; you are! I want all workers to get justice, the same as the people at the top. The negative consequence those not in unions endure is not the union's fault; it is the employers insatiable greed and meanness. And Michaels, you are the only liar in this debate, and sadly, you are lying to yourself, probably over a lifetime of being dumped on by penny pinching bosses, and to stay sane, you have to justify it with a lie. That was such a pathetic attempt at a defense. Reverting back to your childhood again: No i'm not you are, please, next comes the search for another box of kleenix.

And speaking of lies, you tell a great big fat one right here: You call me a liar when I provided the most recent data I could find, and i provided the link so that you and anyone else could look at it for themselves. Your a despicable cretin. Lying Leftyg, the despicable cretin. Maybe I could get my buddy, you know President Trump, to put that in one of his upcoming tweets.
The union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of unions--was unchanged at 10.7 percent in 2017, the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers
belonging to unions, at 14.8 million in 2017, edged up by 262,000 from 2016.
Good Lord. You compare two years after the horse has long gotten out of the barn. In 1980, union membership stood at 25%; today it is just over ten percent (that part you are right about)
[color=#FF0000]I quoted a source and you said that part you got right. I only quoted sources but earlier you said:
And speaking of lies, you tell a great big fat one right here]
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby hmmmmm » June 30th, 2018, 5:04 pm

leftyg wrote:
Not to change the subject, but..... "our late friend Wobbly" ????????
Did we lose Wobbly ?
Yes , I thought all the regulars knew. He passed away in November, 2017 at age 68.

I am not at liberty to give personal information about him, his real name or where he lived; it would not be right. I put up a thread about him and asked where was he and had anyone heard about him. The thread was on the discussion page, I found out myself why he had not posted. He was dying. He never said anything,or complained. But when I saw the name and it was from the area he lived in, and the name was not all that common, I knew it was wobbly.

About two years ago when I had ablation surgery (the one Tito Francona had) he was kind enough to put up a thread about " LeftyG?" Luckily, I was only down a few weeks, but I appreciated the gesture. I was sad that when I returned his gesture, the outcome was not the same. He is gone, and he will be missed.

Thanks for the update Lefty. He will be missed. RIP Wobbly. :cry:
The worst form of inequality, is to try to make unequal things equal ~~~~~ Aristotle

You can't cure poverty by creating more dependency ~~~~~

"Science flies you to the moon. Radical Islamists fly you in to buildings."
~~~~~ hmmmmm
hmmmmm
 
Posts: 761
Joined: March 2nd, 2011, 1:46 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » July 1st, 2018, 12:27 pm

'It is a basic characteristic of stupidity, your stupidity to claim everyone who disagrees with you as wrong. If you don't want the government to be involved, then quit running to them every time your snowflake world crumbles. Stop calling on your congressional reps, and I am sure that YOUR WORLD will do just fine. California, Illinois, New York are all just doing fine with their citizen relocation program. And don't worry about the restaurants closing down, that only gives that great filmmaker Michael Moore footage for his anti-trump documentary[
I am not a damn snowflake. and you comment makes about as mush sense as you do. Do you deny that it is a basic tenet of fascism to ban unions? I hardly ever call my congressional reps. But speaking of snowflakes, you whine all the time, So don't give me that crap!

You snit sans wit:
But the salaries of those in the Union are always justified aren't they?

Don't ever say always; it marks you as a conservative. But yes union salaries are justified because they provide a living wage to people which is what a job in society should do.
A person should not have to work four jobs while the people at the top rake in millions. It is simply not a Christian view which psychologically I think impinges on you: you argue from a Christian perspective and then defend greed and cruelty in our daily life.

What fascist government. Where was your cries and whining under OBama? That authoritarian was the closes thing this country has ever had to a dictator He ignored the constitution, and congress whenever he felt like it. The Unions that have been dying have basically killed themselves. But you go ahead and cry

STOP!Why didn't you say: "When the Supreme court rules for workers?
Reagan killed the unions, and right to work laws killed the unions. It is a central element of fascism to side with management. The government's position should be neutral, the way an umpire's position in a game should be neutral. Government should not side with management as they historically have. It is writ large in our history. Personally one of my favorite movies was Matewan. Government should encourage unions as a counter to coporate power. And you would agree with that if you actually understood the economic system you claim to support, while you in fact support oligarchic state capitalism.

You didn't complain when the court ruled for The ACA did you. Where were all your fascists and oligarch boogeymen then? You don;t know how this works do you? Why yes I do. One side is happy, and your side is perpetually unhappy. Whine away little boy.

Well I believe that is covered in the Preamble to the Constitution: [i][i]We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.[/i][/i]

That is a hell of a lot more to the point than "the right to have a militia" is a license to own a gun. Nobody except a millionaire can adequately protect against health issues. It is not really covered by the law of supply and demand except if you allow that it is OK for a person who cannot afford the treatment to die, and that should be an offense to your Christian values. Most advanced countries have health care. Something to think about, It is the oligarchic boogeyman who funds a media that calls single payer health care socialism.


STOP I thought that the Supreme court was to settle disputes in the law? And I thought the Supreme Court was to use our Constitution and the laws with impartiality? (Lady Justice with her blindfold holding the scales to measure the strength's of a case's support and oppostion
When they consistently side with management you have to wonder why. Where in the Constitution are the rights of management codified as law? The truth is that it is interpretation. So please hold off what you say next:
They are only impartial when you disagree with their ruling Too bad, grab another box of Kleenix
They way you do when one of your sacred cows is attacked, when a young man with incredible athletic ability decides to take a knee at a game? or abortion? You have a bunch of kleenex yourself, so physician heal thyself STOP!

Which you say again:
STOP I thought that the Supreme court was to settle disputes in the law? And I thought the Supreme Court was to use our Constitution and the laws with impartiality? (Lady Justice with her blindfold holding the scales to measure the strength's of a case's support and oppostion
They are supposed to, but you see a bias forming toward the rights of the powerful who interpret freedom in a way that I do not agree with. I interpret it down the middle; they seem to have a bias

You never leave your class envy very far from your mouth or your keyboard do you.
What class envy. You picked up that from Rush Limbaugh, and he is an idiot, a community college dropout. Class envy is a convenient label to use against anybody who disagrees with you. I could call you a chump that works against his own self interests and an iconoclast who embraces a political ideology that is--by its very nature-- Unchristian. But I won't.

There will always be a gap between workers (which you ignore), and owners but how do you account for sports, and Hollywood where some athletes have more money than their owners? Or how about some actors being paid more money than the film director and some actors have earned more money than films that flopped at the box office. Hey Mr. Big mouth teacher, do you want to split your salary with the worker at a nearby theater concession stand? What are you a fascist?
So you are adding a straw man argument to your panoply of bad argument. I never said that all work is equal. And there is huge difference between what LeBron James makes and what I make. But I am happy with what I make. I am just concerned that people like you might need more. Maybe that would help you understand. See the Gini Coefficient https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine ... r-31847943

Oh Lebron makes more than Dan Gilbert does from the Cavs because he (LeBron) is far more valuable. Acting, music, sports and entertainment is driven by the demand for the talent of the performer, not the owner. Basic economics would dictate that

When will employers run roughshod over them. Gosh if the Union employees really believed that then you would think that they would stay with the union for protection. So tell us why are they leaving the unions?
Some people leave unions for ideological reasons. I know that is why Dan Fouts, the Hall of Fame quarterback, did not want to join the players union.

You brought up the size of the unions back in Reagan, and the population of our country is much larger now. So why are the unions shrinking? Go ahead and ignore that and just use another ad hominen attack against me, or whoever is your scapegoat for the moment
First you have broached ad hominem attacks against me. I do not scapegoat; your side does that! So STOP! :D

I do not know what a rising population would have to do with a decline in union membership on the order of what you are talking about, the percentage going from 25% to 10+%. It was dishonest to use 2016 and 2017. A dramatic decline began when Reagan was president as did a huge rise in income inequality. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ince-1928/

Obviously you think that if your not in a union then there is no bargaining process.

When a lone worker is facing an organization with lawyers, associations and organized leadership it is impossible to actully have fair bargaining.
Well then maybe its a reasoning process that is missing and that is why those ex-union workers left. Yea, that must be it. Only the Union workers who stayed in the union have a clear functioning reasoning process. Well not everybody in a union. Because your in a teacher's union aren't you? And your reasoning process left the foundation long ago.
Yes it is. People think that they can make a better deal OR they just do not believe in unions because they think it violates their freedom and they have read too much Ayn Rand.

No I am not in a union and have not been in one since I was 19. I would love to have a union. I make a good living because I am resourceful and willing to put up with a lot of shit. I do not like it, but that is the way it is. AND to be honest, I lead the "Life of Riley."
STOP You stand for discrimination. You approve of an elite group and favor their receiving of wages and benefits that all workers do not get. And you do not give a damn about the negative consequences that the cities and those that are not in the union suffer. So stop pretending that you stand for the little guy because that is a lie
Again you are wrong. Hint: when you are wrong and you repeat it, you are still wrong. I am one of those people not represented by a union, and I want to be. But in my business most of the people trying to start a union are naive idealists more concerned with the "struggle" than real life problems.

Bottom line is I do not lie. I will leave it to other readers to decide that. But I did not make one false statement in what I wrote. I gave opinions that may not bear up under scrutiny but I make it a personal goal to never knowingly lie about anything.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » July 1st, 2018, 2:35 pm

1) If you don't want the government to be involved, then quit running to them every time your snowflake world crumbles. Stop calling on your congressional reps,
Leftyg said " I hardly ever call my congressional reps."
Nuff said!

2) But the salaries of those in the Union are always justified aren't they?
Leftyg said: "But yes union salaries are justified"
Nuff said!

3) Leftyg, your caveman position is Union good. That is your position. I don't agree with it, but then regarding the issue, it is more than what we agree or disagree on is it not? If Union's are good, then they should be able to attract and hold their own membership. But without being judgmental about the value of unions, the decline in union memberships anywhere begs the question why if unions are good? You can continue to blame union membership decline on your fascist and oligarch boogeymen, but when you ask the Union membership itself (WARNING! THE FOLLOWING MUST BE DISMISSED AS ANECDOTAL
SPECULATIONS!)
what are they saying? Again, this goes back to individual choice. People pay for medical, car, home or renters insurance. They pay for what they can afford and they usually pay it because
they believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Unions should be no different as a subjective matter in evaluating value. And the results should speak for themselves. Since there are people working
outside of unions, it is hard to legitimately argue that Union survival is necessary. For Unions to survive, they can help themselves by working for and advertising superior products and services. They must be able
to compete with the rest of society, nationally and in global terms. If unions could provide a superior product or service and show it, they could justify bargaining for higher wages, and attract members who would like to come for higher wages. Unfortunately, Unions are not thinking along present day views, they seem more stuck on the past. The New York Times recently ran an editorial: "Unions must now save themselves"
Unfortunately, much of the prescription or plan is based on Union thinking from the past. (6/29/18, page A 24). Maybe Unions could ban the reading of Ayn Rand from their members. :roll:
But seriously, I do not see today's employers or future ones willing to pay all of their emplyoees 4X their salaray to give them the imaginary living wage and pay them X amount in retirement. And I am not in a union either. Like you I am resourceful, but I am not living the life of Riley.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Scorpion » July 2nd, 2018, 9:22 am

It rankles me that my union dues go to support candidates I categorically disagree with.
Whatever percentage goes towards political contributions, I want a refund.
A man wants to have sex or he doesn't.
If he doesn't, its like trying to put a marshmallow into a parking meter.
Scorpion
 
Posts: 4692
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 2:58 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby JuicedTruth » July 2nd, 2018, 9:54 am

The contributions are going to candidates who the Union thinks will best support them. Lobbying is an unfortunately side-effect of our political system, but it's still in the best interest of theunion to spend those dollars there. Do you actually like having/being in the union?
User avatar
JuicedTruth
 
Posts: 3427
Joined: February 8th, 2011, 3:07 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » July 2nd, 2018, 11:51 am

Michaels, please don't call my position caveman just because I understand the import of the gini coefficient. You are the boards resident caveman, and you probably have Geico insurance. The economy works better when people at the bottom have more money; they create demand which in turn creates work
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » July 3rd, 2018, 3:36 pm

Leftyg, can you provide any example of the Unions doing anything wrong?
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » July 24th, 2018, 11:15 am

Michaels153 wrote:Not for long scorpion. The constitutionality of Janus settled. The precedent will be applied to private sector.


Here it is Scorpion.
https://townhall.com/capitol-voices/congressmanfrancisrooney/2018/07/24/time-to-free-workers-from-corrupt-unions-n2503039
Time to Free Workers From Corrupt Unions
By Congressman Francis Rooney |Posted: Jul 24, 2018 7:00 AM

The recent Supreme Court ruling in Janus vs AFSCME ended a practice of abuse of public sector employees by their unions. The decision prevents unions from forcing the payment of dues by non-members and is a major victory for our civil servants. Now it is time to stop similar corrupt tactics used by unions to force private sector non-union employees to pay dues.

Thanks to a hand-out by the Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), unions can collect involuntary dues from former members who recently cancelled membership. In 2013, the NLRB overturned the 1962 Bethlehem Steel decision, which set the precedent that “dues checkoffs,” or union dues collected directly from an employee’s wages, expired when a union contract ended. One-sided negations never end fairly, and, under the 2013 ruling, unions receive an uninterrupted stream of cash and have no reason to come to the table if they deem a new deal to be insufficient. This is a gift to unions at the expense of the American worker.

This ploy is right out of the same playbook that pushed Mark Janus to fight the unions. By creating a so-called “window period,” unions can automatically collect dues from individuals who have ended their union involvement, in some cases for up to a year. Incredibly, this even applies for up to one year to employees in “right-to-work” states. If the unions offer value to members, why do they need to hide behind partisan legal barriers and employ deceitful maneuvers to continue to control workers?

The answer is that unions are run for their administration, not the workers, like, unfortunately, some aspects of public education. Unions spent $1.7 billion on political activities in 2016, most of which was in support of Democrats. Union bosses put on endless conferences, have outrageous salaries, and have even been known to spend money on lavish sporting events. This is in addition to making crony investments from their pension funds leaving them under-funded and leaving the members’ retirements at risk.

Forced unionism is a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of American workers. An individual who disagrees with a union on policy or politics should not be forced to support it financially contrary to their right to free speech. Furthermore, individuals should be free to spend their hard-earned money as they choose, free of coerced subsidization of union political activities.I have introduced the Employee Freedom Act to end the greedy gimmicks unions have been using on hard-working Americans across the country. The bill would reinstate the Bethlehem Steel decision by ending dues checkoff provisions when a union contract expires. Further, the bill will respect the decisions of states which implement right-to-work laws by eliminating the window period.

Thanks to Janus, unions have no right to infringe on the free speech of public sector employees. It is time to extend this same principle to the private sector. This would be accomplished by reversing the politically-motivated decision of the Obama NLRB, and restoring the rights of hard-working Americans.

Francis Rooney is the U.S. Representative for Florida's 19th congressional district. He serves on the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Last edited by Michaels153 on July 25th, 2018, 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » July 25th, 2018, 2:39 pm

In my gut, I simply believe that conservatives hate little people. There is no subtantive ideology to it; they just hate the little guy, and they use racism and bigotry to make one little guy hate another or one man to hat women. I asked you Michaels for your knowledge of the Gini Coefficient which describes the distribution of wealth in a population. Oligarchies tend to have little wealth distribution: most money sets at the top, and that harms demand.

Your embrace of corporate power to me is a moral sin. Instead of talking about what labor has done wrong, I want you to look at a clip of government in bed with business and tell me how that furthers freedom. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Sc ... ORM=VRDGAR
You think it is ok for government to collude with business.

I have a question for you: how do your views on the treatment of labor and little people in general fit your Christian beliefs?
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » July 27th, 2018, 5:35 am

leftyg wrote:In my gut, I simply believe that conservatives hate little people. There is no subtantive ideology to it; they just hate the little guy, and they use racism and bigotry to make one little guy hate another or one man to hat women. I asked you Michaels for your knowledge of the Gini Coefficient which describes the distribution of wealth in a population. Oligarchies tend to have little wealth distribution: most money sets at the top, and that harms demand.

Your embrace of corporate power to me is a moral sin. Instead of talking about what labor has done wrong, I want you to look at a clip of government in bed with business and tell me how that furthers freedom. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Sc ... ORM=VRDGAR
You think it is ok for government to collude with business.

I have a question for you: how do your views on the treatment of labor and little people in general fit your Christian beliefs?

__________
I believe that at the base of your grief is bitterness. Acts 8:23. Your asserting that conservatives hate "little people"? You make the unfounded allegation that conservatives use racism and bigotry to "make one little guy hate another man, or one man to hate women" But where is your evidence? What do you propose demonstrates this contention? What is your definition of a conservative? Is your definition of a conservative considered to be the consensus of society? You have to have this before you attempt to make any connection with your unfounded allegation. Where is your example of this conservative using racism and bigotry to make "one little guy hate another man, or one man to hate women"? You don't show any example here. The distribution of wealth in a population is a natural fact. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "For you have the poor with you always." - Matthew 26:11. There have always been people who have more or less than others, in every society, since the beginning of time. People are born with nothing, live, grow, accumulate, and sometimes loose whatever they had necessitating them to start over again. There are many reasons for poverty. Poverty is not an invention of conservatives. Conservatives and liberals have both been born the same way. There have been some from both sides who have become wealthy, or have been wealthy and became poor. Using statistics to chart something like this does not change what has always been the case and will always continue to be the case. This statistic is more for people like you to whine and complain about and to falsely blame others for its existence.

As to the Lord Jesus Christ's views on the treatment of labor: Proverbs 3:5,6., -> Matthew 6:25 - 33., ->John 15:5. And then comes the proof. Genesis 13:8,9 how Abram and Lot separated. Both had been richly blessed, but Abram let Lot choose what land he wanted to take and God continued to bless Abram for Abram's trust in Him (God). And how God blessed Jacob who served Laban honestly for all those years. In Luke chapter 3:14, the Lord Jesus Christ said:..."And be content with your wages." And in Hebrews 13:5 it says: "Let your conduct be without covetousness, and be content with such things as you have. And the lesson against covetousness, and to be content with what the Lord provides comes from Numbers chapter 11 where the people grumbled and complained for meat though the Lord had been providing them with mana, he sent quail to them and they ate the quail until it sickened them.
In summary, the answer to labor begins with our relationship to God. If we first trust him, then he shall provide for what we need because He knows what we need. And in our treatment of others, we should be just and fair with one another as Abram showed Lot. And we should honor our obligations as Jacob did to Laban. The focus begins first with our relation with God and in trusting God. From there, we learn from His examples how to treat others.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » July 27th, 2018, 10:25 am

I believe that at the base of your grief is bitterness. Acts 8:23. Your asserting that conservatives hate "little people"? You make the unfounded allegation that conservatives use racism and bigotry to "make one little guy hate another man, or one man to hate women" But where is your evidence? What do you propose demonstrates this contention? What is your definition of a conservative? Is your definition of a conservative considered to be the consensus of society? You have to have this before you attempt to make any connection with your unfounded allegation. Where is your example of this conservative using racism and bigotry to make "one little guy hate another man, or one man to hate women"? You don't show any example here. The distribution of wealth in a population is a natural fact. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "For you have the poor with you always." - Matthew 26:11. There have always been people who have more or less than others, in every society, since the beginning of time. People are born with nothing, live, grow, accumulate, and sometimes loose whatever they had necessitating them to start over again. There are many reasons for poverty. Poverty is not an invention of conservatives. Conservatives and liberals have both been born the same way. There have been some from both sides who have become wealthy, or have been wealthy and became poor. Using statistics to chart something like this does not change what has always been the case and will always continue to be the case. This statistic is more for people like you to whine and complain about and to falsely blame others for its existence.
It is not bitterness with me, at all. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that conservatives are racist. Just yesterday Bob Frantz put an article about "the geometry of whiteness" https://www.facebook.com/RadioDoneRight ... 3557375040 And with him I have hundreds of instances of racism and and bigotry on another thread, all much better documented then anything you have put up. Also remember, that the South turned red using the Southern strategy that Nixon created and Reagan perfected when he began his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi where the freedom riders were murdered https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/sev ... ps-debate/

This from Fivethirtyeight:
Now in office, conservative Christian leaders are strongly backing the president, even at times when almost no one else will. Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of evangelical Liberty University, defended Trump’s controversial comments in the wake of the violent white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Amid allegations that Trump had an extramarital affair, Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son and head of the non-profit Samaritan’s Purse, downplayed the controversy.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... ngelicals/
As to women, I think the answer is not so harsh as "hate." I like this response:
* In spite of being pragmatically egalitarian, the majority of American evangelicals believe that final authority, leadership and decision-making is the responsibility of men in marriage.

Now this is not a big deal to men, but lots of women find that highly offensive. http://hirr.hartsem.edu/research/quick_question24.html

As to wealth and poverty, I think Christians should do everything to give what they have to help the poor in an ethical way. Jesus said
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 19:21.

Using statistics and charts trumps anything you offer. The ability to interpret data is one of the things that differentiates us from animals and allows us to spot trends before they happen. Jesus and math are against you Michaels.
The war on poverty did wonders for poverty in this country, until Reagan waved the white flag. Poverty for senior citizens dropped from 35% to a current 8.8%. Poverty for everyone else was going down until Republicans basically
Poverty_Rates_by_Age_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG
Poverty_Rates_by_Age_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG (145.28 KiB) Viewed 2762 times



As to the Lord Jesus Christ's views on the treatment of labor: Proverbs 3:5,6., -> Matthew 6:25 - 33., ->John 15:5. And then comes the proof. Genesis 13:8,9 how Abram and Lot separated. Both had been richly blessed, but Abram let Lot choose what land he wanted to take and God continued to bless Abram for Abram's trust in Him (God). And how God blessed Jacob who served Laban honestly for all those years. In Luke chapter 3:14, the Lord Jesus Christ said:..."And be content with your wages." And in Hebrews 13:5 it says: "Let your conduct be without covetousness, and be content with such things as you have. And the lesson against covetousness, and to be content with what the Lord provides comes from Numbers chapter 11 where the people grumbled and complained for meat though the Lord had been providing them with mana, he sent quail to them and they ate the quail until it sickened them.
In summary, the answer to labor begins with our relationship to God. If we first trust him, then he shall provide for what we need because He knows what we need. And in our treatment of others, we should be just and fair with one another as Abram showed Lot. And we should honor our obligations as Jacob did to Laban. The focus begins first with our relation with God and in trusting God. From there, we learn from His examples how to treat others.
This is a real conflation Michaels. Nobody is attacking the wealthy except Jesus. But sharing our wealth and the proceeds of labor more equitably helps everyone.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » July 27th, 2018, 1:35 pm

leftyg wrote:[/color]
It is not bitterness with me, at all. I think You think, means absolutely nothing. You have no evidence to show that "Conservatives" are racists. Where are your statistics? How many conseervatives supposedly are racists? there is plenty of evidence to show that conservatives are racist. Just yesterday Bob Frantz put an article about "the geometry of whiteness" https://www.facebook.com/RadioDoneRight ... 3557375040 That has the same validity as me labeling you a terrorist. https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2018/07/26/scam-professor-on-the-geometry-of-whiteness/

And with him I have hundreds of instances of racism and and bigotry on another thread, IN your own mind, If Bob Frantz farts, that is proof that he is a racist. Your dislike for this man is because he had the common sense to stop listening to you and banning you. National Review did the same thing to you so that too must be evidence to you that they must be racist also. You parse every syllable of what Bob Frantz says and then create an example that this proves he is a racist to you.
Where are the statistics that shows that Bob Frantz is a racist? And you cling to the "you can't prove anything" crap. Which makes you a hypocrite everytime you say you have proof about anything including that Bob Frantz or that Conservatives are racists.
all much better documented then anything you have put up. More crap from you.Also remember, that the South turned red using the Southern strategy that Nixon created and Reagan perfected when he began his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia Mississippi where the freedom riders were murdered https://theintercept.com/2015/09/16/sev ... ps-debate/ You want history, -> President Lincoln and the forming and the foundation of the Republican Party. - NUFF SAID

Most of what you post here is offensive

As to wealth and poverty, I think Christians should do everything to give what they have to help the poor in an ethical way. Jesus said
"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 19:21. Again, go sell your possessions and then follow Jesus, because you haven't been following Jesus.

Using statistics and charts trumps anything you offer. The ability to interpret data is one of the things that differentiates us from animals and allows us to spot trends before they happen. Jesus and math are against you Michaels. You are such an offensive donkey. Go play with numbers, because to you that is far more important than what the Lord Jesus Christ has to say.
The war on poverty did wonders for poverty in this country, until Reagan waved the white flag. Poverty for senior citizens dropped from 35% to a current 8.8%. Poverty for everyone else was going down until Republicans basically
Poverty_Rates_by_Age_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG



[]This is a real conflation Michaels. Nobody is attacking the wealthy except Jesus. I don't see you following the Toulmin Model here. Just say anything you feel like.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 15th, 2018, 2:01 pm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/11/workers-say-unions-defying-janus-ruling-threaten-new-court-action.html
Workers say unions defying Janus ruling, threaten new court action
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News

"Napolitano: SCOTUS hits hard against public-sector unions
Judge Napolitano's Chambers: Judge Andrew Napolitano explains the relevance of the Supreme Court decision against mandatory union dues.

Despite the landmark Supreme Court ruling this summer barring public-sector unions from requiring nonmembers to pay so-called agency fees, workers in several states say unions are either flat-out ignoring the decision or establishing a frustrating maze of procedural roadblocks to avoid compliance.

The June decision in Janus v. AFSCME sent shockwaves through organized labor in the U.S., holding not only that public unions violated the First Amendment by taking money out of unwilling workers' paychecks to fund collective bargaining, but also that employees must "clearly and affirmatively consent" before any fees or dues are collected.

Janus could end up costing unions hundreds of millions of dollars in California alone, where workers who filed an earlier suit say the case should apply retroactively, alleging that the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) retained members not through their "clear" consent, but through convoluted and difficult "opt-out" procedures. The nation's largest union, the 3-million-member National Education Association, announced plans to cut nearly $40M from its budget after Janus, amid fears it would lose hundreds of thousands of members.

Faced with those challenges, workers' rights advocates say some unions and state governments have decided to effectively defy the Supreme Court.

"We're seeing huge problems across the country," Diana Rickert, the vice president of the Liberty Justice Center, which represented the plaintiff in the Janus case before the Supreme Court, told Fox News. "There is almost no government in America that is fully complying with the Janus ruling."

She said this includes unions not seeking "clear" consent with members as prescribed by Janus, or even using intimidation tactics to keep members on the rolls.

Hillary Clinton touts energized membership at national teachers union conference
While the Liberty Justice Center has sent cease-and-desist letters to 11 states, from Ohio to New York, demanding that state officials comply with Janus, Rickert said litigation will be necessary in some instances to force states to follow the law.

"What we're up against is a national manipulation campaign led by government unions who want to stand in the way of workers exercising their rights," Rickert said. "Government union officials across the country are trying to scare and intimidate people into maintaining membership by making threats – they say things like, ‘Your salary will go down if you leave the union’ or ‘You’ll lose your benefits.'"

(WASHINGTON STATE EMPLOYEES SUE TO 'ESCAPE' UNION AFTER JANUS DECISION)

In other instances in states including California and Minnesota, Rickert said, workers have been told they can only leave unions at some specific window in the future.

That was allegedly the case in Washington state, where several workers sued the government last month after being told they would have to wait until an "escape period" next year to leave their union. The Washington-based conservative Freedom Foundation brought the case against the Washington Federation of State Employees, saying it had "pressured" and misled employees.

The Freedom Foundation announced late last month that Janus had left the SEIU "no choice" but to settle a lawsuit by public-sector nurses who asserted that their union had been skimming fees from their paychecks without their consent. The union returned the fees and, additionally, agreed to stop collecting fees absent clear consent.

Attorney Harmeet Dhillon discusses how the Supreme Court's Janus vs. AFSCME ruling may impact upcoming election cycles.
That second part has proven something of a sticking point for public-sector unions. Rickert said many state government employers are still violating Janus by not obtaining clear and affirmative consent from existing members who had consented to join unions prior to Janus -- when they faced a much narrower choice between paying mandatory agency fees, or opting into the union and, in many cases, paying a similar or identical amount of money.

That is also an issue in the pending Washington case, in which the the Freedom Foundation argued, “it’s impossible for a worker to have knowingly waived a right that wasn’t recognized by the court until the Janus ruling was issued.”

For their part, unions have denied any strategic effort to defy the new Supreme Court decision.

"SEIU’s local unions are in compliance with the Supreme Court directives in Janus," SEIU spokeswoman Sara Lonardo told Fox News. She added that the California suit against the SEIU local union there "lacks merit."

But in a statement shortly after the Janus decision, Greg Kelley, president of SEIU Healthcare Illinois Indiana Missouri & Kansas, presaged the ongoing fight against the ruling.

“What the court and these groups don’t realize ... is that workers will not be deterred by such rulings and will continue to organize and unite to win fair wages and benefits while also providing the care and services that taxpayers want and deserve," Kelley said.

There are signs the fight may not be over soon.

Some legal experts, including UCLA Law Professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, have suggested that states might be able to perform a constitutional end-run around Janus by directly funding unions using general tax revenues, rather than taking funds directly from individual workers' paychecks. Officials in some states, including Hawaii, have floated measures along those lines, which Rickert said would lead to additional legal challenges grounded in the same fundamental principle.

"This case is about giving workers a choice and a voice," Rickert said. "Not tricking, intimidating or coercing people into union membership."

Fox News' Kaitlyn Schallhorn contributed to this report.

Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.

Pushback from the Unions was to be expectecd because the Unions are looking at the worst cases scenario that they are predicting as a result of the Janus Ruling.
Judge Napolitano has pointed to the two main directions that the unions can choose from since the Janus ruling. With these workers saying that the Unions are trying to defy the Supreme Court Ruling, points to the Unions unwillingness of working with the workers to keep them in the Union under the Union's terms, and not under conditions that workers are willing to stay. That is disappointing but not surprising.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 16th, 2018, 8:13 am

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2018/09/15/10k-new-york-city-employees-optout-of-big-labor-fees-after-janus-ruling-n2519327
10K New York City Employees Stop Paying Big Labor Fees After Janus Ruling
Timothy Meads Timothy Meads

The New York Post recently reported that more than 10,000 New York City employees decided that they actually did not want to pay money towards their previously forced monopoly bargaining representatives. These workers were freed from paying forced union dues by a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in Janus v. AFSCME which declared that forced public sector union fees are a violation of the First Amendment.

According to the New York Post, this resulted in nearly a quarter million worth of union fees being subtracted from the hands of Big Labor.

via New York Post:

"City records show that there were 314,770 city workers paying union dues prior to the Janus v. AFSCME ruling on June 27 that found government workers can’t be forced to pay dues to unions that represent them in collective bargaining.

By the first July pay period following the decision, the number dropped by 10,328 – or 3 percent – to 304,442.

That cost the unions about $250,000 for that two-week period."

Assisted by free legal aid from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation plaintiff Mark Janus, an Illinois childcare support specialist, sued AFSCME claiming his first amendment rights were being violated by being forced to pay money towards an organization he did not agree with to speak to the government on his behalf. The High Court ruled 5-4 in his favor overturning 40 years of precedent and declaring that unions and the government cannot force individuals into unionization nor subsidizing speech with which they disagree.
After the ruling, National Right to Work President Mark Mix released the following statement to the press:

“Today’s decision is a landmark victory for rights of public-sector employees coast-to-coast that will free millions of teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees from mandatory union payments. While this victory represents a massive step forward in the fight to protect American workers from forced unionism, that fight is far from over. Union officials and their allies in state government have already taken steps to prevent workers from exercising their rights under the Janus decision, while millions of private sector workers in states without Right to Work protections are still forced to pay union fees or else be fired. Further, workers of all stripes continue to have their freedoms of association violated by being forced under union monopoly ‘representation’ against their will. So while we celebrate today’s decision, there remains much work to do to both enforce and expand upon this historic victory over coercive unionism.”

Critics will argue the mass exodus of workers leaving unions, but still maintaining whatever supposed benefits unions earned on their behalf are creating a "free rider" problem. But, pro-right to work individuals would assert that the only reason unions are forced to cover all employees in a bargaining unit is because union representatives often fight for monopoly representation in the first place.

The "Fair" choices open to unions has been previously discussed. Unions could seek to bargain with only employees willing to join that uniion knowing and agreeing to this. They could for example seek contracts for their teachers instead of the teacher who opted not to join them. This of course would lead to other legal battles down the road under "equal pay for equal work." Or they could try to work for the benefit of their members without the political side of it much like contractors and services do with their customers now.
The unions do have viable alternatives if they are willing to use them. Change is hard, but trying to keep the ways of the past in defiance of present law is a harder path.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 17th, 2018, 10:38 am

The "Fair" choices open to unions has been previously discussed. Unions could seek to bargain with only employees willing to join that uniion knowing and agreeing to this. They could for example seek contracts for their teachers instead of the teacher who opted not to join them. This of course would lead to other legal battles down the road under "equal pay for equal work." Or they could try to work for the benefit of their members without the political side of it much like contractors and services do with their customers now.
The unions do have viable alternatives if they are willing to use them. Change is hard, but trying to keep the ways of the past in defiance of present law is a harder path.
Why don't you mind the system that protects corporations with laws (invariably crafted by bought and paid for legislators) that favor business? Why is it OK for corporate America to have their interests catered to while the average person is struggling to get by? Why do you hate unions while you tolerate far worse in corporate America? I give you once more the whole right wing strategy to destroy unions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7v8f8jBrW8 You probably will not look at it or consider it. But you are very comfortable with business imposing its thumb on workers always for the self-interest of business.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 17th, 2018, 12:45 pm

leftyg wrote:.
[/color]Why don't you mind the system that protects corporations with laws (invariably crafted by bought and paid for legislators) that favor business? Why is it OK for corporate America to have their interests catered to while the average person is struggling to get by? Why do you hate unions while you tolerate far worse in corporate America? I give you once more the whole right wing strategy to destroy unions https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7v8f8jBrW8 You probably will not look at it or consider it. But you are very comfortable with business imposing its thumb on workers always for the self-interest of business.


Your unhinged allegations of corporate America have little reality in the present, and much less of an impact than you are ever going to believe. Who, besides you, is suggesting that corporate America have their interests "catered to"? Why link what the average person does to how corporate America pursues their interests? There have always been and will always be, various social, economic distinctions in any society. In both agrarian and industrial societies there are rich and poor people. Corporate - anywhere has not and will never change that. Just as people dying at various ages will never change. Complaining about the persistent realities in life is a waste of time and energy. Accept reality and do what YOU can to make it better. Stop looking for people and entities to blame. This is part of the failure of liberalism. When you believe you can establish Utopia here on earth and the only hindrance from reaching the "Good Society" is ignorance, in as much as the retraining of others who are not on the same page with you will correct the identified ill. That is not going to happen.
And how long are you going to offer your link on Walker as your supposed proof of the conspiracy to destroy unions? Unions are destroying themselves.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 17th, 2018, 3:24 pm

Your unhinged allegations of corporate America have little reality in the present, and much less of an impact than you are ever going to believe. Who, besides you, is suggesting that corporate America have their interests "catered to"? Why link what the average person does to how corporate America pursues their interests? There have always been and will always be, various social, economic distinctions in any society. In both agrarian and industrial societies there are rich and poor people. Corporate - anywhere has not and will never change that. Just as people dying at various ages will never change. Complaining about the persistent realities in life is a waste of time and energy. Accept reality and do what YOU can to make it better. Stop looking for people and entities to blame. This is part of the failure of liberalism. When you believe you can establish Utopia here on earth and the only hindrance from reaching the "Good Society" is ignorance, in as much as the retraining of others who are not on the same page with you will correct the identified ill. That is not going to happen.
I seriously doubt my allegations are "unhinged:" they are based on empirical measures given on this very thread. The income of the top one percent has gone thru the roof while the bottom 90% (people like us) have stayed the same.

Corporate America thinks that keeping the little guy down is beneficial to them though it really is to their detriment as well. Unlike mortality, we can change the material facts of our lives. Before 1980, the average person hasd it pretty good. We can make income distribution more equitable if we vote for the right people, and that will make life better for all of us. I am not blaming anybody but the people themselves for their plight. I showed you a video of Diane Hendricks asking Scott Walker when Wisconsin would be a completely red state. All we have to do is tell people like Diane Hendricks that we will have unions and we can tell people like Scott Walker that "you are fired."
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 17th, 2018, 9:16 pm

leftyg wrote:
I seriously doubt my allegations are "unhinged:" they are based on empirical measures given on this very thread. Again with the "empirical measures". Your so focused on any discrepancy being "proof" or being the "evidence" that something is unfair and wrong because it is not equal, you can not see that that, is your false premise. The income of the top one percent has gone thru the roof while the bottom 90% (people like us) have stayed the same. Leftyg, let us suppose, for illustrative purposes, that you hold the ability to eliminate corporate america. Remember this is just for illustrative purposes so lets not get bogged down with anything that would prevent you from being able to do this.
Now you have the power to eliminate corporate America. You are not going to kill anybody, just eliminate them. You establish the dividing line, economically for example between corporate America and "the rest of us." Perhaps you put corporate america on a boat and send it to Antarctica. Okay, poof, mission accomplished. Now there is no 1% with X amount of income, and no bottom 90% of "The rest of us".
Now, are "the rest of us " better off than we were before? You would still have divisions. But now the rest of us have all the income. Perhaps the difference now would be a 50% difference in income. Maybe now the highest income of the rest of us is $80,000 and the lowest income is $40,000, (a 50% difference)
So you have gotten rid of corporate America, and the rest of us are making the same amount of income as before, or would we? Now there is no more corporate America.
Again, I ask you, are "we", that is the rest of us", better off now than we were before?
When you think about it, we aren't. The Gini coefficient may now be closer. But are we better off?
You see, you had placed all the blame for the social ills of a society on one metric - income, and you have charged corporate America as the scapegoat for all the ills of society because they had more income than the rest of us. But without that metric, the ills of society do not disappear now do they?
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 18th, 2018, 9:37 am

Again with the "empirical measures". Your so focused on any discrepancy being "proof" or being the "evidence" that something is unfair and wrong because it is not equal, you can not see that that, is your false premise.
Michaels the fact that wages have been flat since 1980 and income at the top has gone up against inflation 600% is not a small discrepancy. I do not use the word "proof;" you do. For you a .2 (two tenths percent) drop in African-American unemployment was proof of an economic resurgence in the black community; relatively small gains in the stock market were proof of a resurgence; a .9% drop in an already declining unemployment rate was proof of a resurgence under Trump.

The point is never have I heard a more absurdly autobiographical argument used against someone else.

I have to go to work. I am sure there is a lot more stuff, but it will have to wait.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 18th, 2018, 10:50 am

Leftyg, You were given an illustration regarding your "Corporate America" scapegoat and you ignored that to focus on "empirical data". You looked for something you wanted to argue about when there was no argument given. Can you even discuss something outside of a spreadsheet? You probably shun gatherings or parties as things that you rather not get involved in. But have someone give you an old phone book and open any page and you have found your Nirvana. You get to look at numbers. You can look at phone numbers, address numbers, zip codes. I bet you could actually loose yourself in that phone book.
But even though you don't like discussing anything outside of your empirical data, answer the question I asked you about your corporate America, and then go back to your phone book.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 19th, 2018, 11:27 am

Leftyg, You were given an illustration regarding your "Corporate America" scapegoat and you ignored that to focus on "empirical data". You looked for something you wanted to argue about when there was no argument given. Can you even discuss something outside of a spreadsheet? You probably shun gatherings or parties as things that you rather not get involved in. But have someone give you an old phone book and open any page and you have found your Nirvana. You get to look at numbers. You can look at phone numbers, address numbers, zip codes. I bet you could actually loose yourself in that phone book.
But even though you don't like discussing anything outside of your empirical data, answer the question I asked you about
You have an amazing track record for being wrong. I am actually the life of the party. BUT I use numbers when they are called for. And in our discussion they are called for. Upton Sinclair said "you cannot explain something to a man if it effects his salary." And it is true. And in your case, you cannot explain something if it effects the salaries of rich guys you appear to like.

You clearly lose an argument based on the facts (that boring stuff you find in the "phone book"), so you resort to name calling. There is no doubt that what I wrote was true, so you grasped at straws, a straw man about me which you have no way of knowing. Yet you rave about a man with virtually no character nor any perceivable intelligence that he can manifest.

You are into "truthiness," a term coined by Stephen Colbert: "the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true." https://www.bing.com/search?q=truthines ... lang=en-US
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 19th, 2018, 3:49 pm

Thank you for never answering the question posed to you in your last two posts. You lose by default.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 19th, 2018, 7:07 pm

Leftyg, let us suppose, for illustrative purposes, that you hold the ability to eliminate corporate america. Remember this is just for illustrative purposes so lets not get bogged down with anything that would prevent you from being able to do this.
Now you have the power to eliminate corporate America. You are not going to kill anybody, just eliminate them. You establish the dividing line, economically for example between corporate America and "the rest of us." Perhaps you put corporate america on a boat and send it to Antarctica. Okay, poof, mission accomplished. Now there is no 1% with X amount of income, and no bottom 90% of "The rest of us".
First this is one hell of an argument. Just because I want corporate America to not suppress unions does not mean I want to eliminate corporate America. Your whole argument is argumentum ad absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

I simply want workers to have a right to unionize and press employers for a bigger piece of the pie. The point is if workers had more they would spend more and demand would go up which is good for everyone.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 20th, 2018, 8:39 am

First this is one hell of an argument. Just because I want corporate America to not suppress unions does not mean I want to eliminate corporate America.
Did I say you wanted to eliminate corporate America?
Michaels: Leftyg, let us suppose, for illustrative purposes, that you hold the ability to eliminate corporate america. Remember this is just for illustrative purposes so lets not get bogged down with anything that would prevent you from being able to do this.


Your whole argument is argumentum ad absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
No. Your retort, beginning with the false statement that I claimed you wanted to eliminate corporate America, and then proceeding from that false statement that what follows, that is what I say next and what you are categorizing as an argument, borders on the fallacy fallacy, where you assume my conclusion about your scapegoat is wrong because my illustration may not be perfect.
For clarity sake; When you said: "The income of the top one percent has gone thru the roof while the bottom 90% (people like us) have stayed the same." Was not this statement taken to be the core of your grievance against "corporate America"? Remember, you followed this up by immediately saying: "Corporate America thinks that keeping the little guy down is beneficial to them though it really is to their detriment as well.
Now I want to show you how to stay focused in a discussion. You did not provide "evidence" that Corporate America thinks that keeping the little guy down is beneficial to them. You did not follow Toulmin's model. But I don't care about that here in this discussion. Just as I told you regarding your being able to eliminate corporate America when i said "lets not get bogged down with anything that would prevent you from being able to do this." - this is supposed to be a discussion about an illustration to demonstrate that your primary grievance is misplaced.
But initially, you were not interested in a discussion, you were looking for an argument, and I called you out on it.

Michaels: Your so focused on any discrepancy being "proof" or being the "evidence" that something is unfair and wrong because it is not equal, you can not see that that, is your false premise

Your response: "Michaels the fact that wages have been flat since 1980 and income at the top has gone up against inflation 600% is not a small discrepancy.
I stated that your so focused on any discrepancy and you replied - "...is not a small discrepancy."
So in summary, you were looking for an argument, and I have delienated the responses by you demonstrating it.

But you did begin to discuss the matter. But before we return to your discussion, let's clear up the illustration and look at what you provided as your major grievance. If the income discrepancy were caused by corporate America, and that is what is keeping "the little man down," then what would happen if "Corporate America" were no more? That is what I wanted you to ponder. So by illustration, I gave you the power to eliminate corporate America. Now if the problems remain after Corporate America is gone, then to blame them for the same problems initially is to falsely blame them for the problem. Obviously, if they are not here, or no longer around, then they can't be at fault or the blame for the problems you originally assigned them. And as I previously stated, you would still have divisions of income, and I asked you if "we" would be better off without corporate America. I don't think we would, and I don't think you would disagree with that.
As to what you said: " I simply want workers to have a right to unionize and press employers for a bigger piece of the pie. The point is if workers had more they would spend more and demand would go up which is good for everyone.

Workers still have the "right" to unionize. and corporate America, in some ways would prefer to deal with unions. Companies use Kelly Services, Manpower, and headhunters to seek out workers. If Unions already had a sufficient quantity of readily available servicable workers, then that would be a huge benefit to them and a marketable resource for the unions.

But a "marketable resource should not be used to extort a company into giving them what they want. If the Unions bargain in good faith, they should be able to procure fair contracts.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 21st, 2018, 12:17 am

If the income discrepancy were caused by corporate America, and that is what is keeping "the little man down," then what would happen if "Corporate America" were no more? That is what I wanted you to ponder. So by illustration, I gave you the power to eliminate corporate America. Now if the problems remain after Corporate America is gone, then to blame them for the same problems initially is to falsely blame them for the problem. Obviously, if they are not here, or no longer around, then they can't be at fault or the blame for the problems you originally assigned them. And as I previously stated, you would still have divisions of income, and I asked you if "we" would be better off without corporate America. I don't think we would, and I don't think you would disagree with that.
As to what you said: " I simply want workers to have a right to unionize and press employers for a bigger piece of the pie. The point is if workers had more they would spend more and demand would go up which is good for everyone.


Michaels you are addicted to gobbledegook and obfuscation. Corporate America has tried to suppress unions and again I give you billionaire Diane Hendricks talking to Scot Walker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7v8f8jBrW8 which you will again ignore and then tell me I do not know what I am talking about. Corporate America should not suppress unions anymore than anybody should suppress corporate America. It is not rocket science. If we have an economic market place for labor, workers should have rights just like companies. And in right to work states they do not have much power at all which creates this disparity
Workers still have the "right" to unionize. and corporate America, in some ways would prefer to deal with unions. Companies use Kelly Services, Manpower, and headhunters to seek out workers. If Unions already had a sufficient quantity of readily available servicable workers, then that would be a huge benefit to them and a marketable resource for the unions.
As a nation we should embark on an education program and probably allow more immigration into the country instead of less. But Republicans prefer tax cuts to investing in the country. Watch them go after Social Security and Medicare rather than reducing or eliminating corporate tax cuts to solve the massive deficit the tax cuts created http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... story.html https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1HG2RW
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 21st, 2018, 9:30 am

[
Michaels: Corporate America has tried to suppress unions and again No Toulmin's model here. Where is the data of Corporate America attempting ("tried") to suppress Unions? Without data you do not even have a fact as grounds to begin your argument here. The only work that Scott Walker has done is to help workers in his state and you redefine that act as suppressing unions? The fact that Corporate America use unions anywhere weakens the suggestion by you that they are trying to suppress them. We are supposed to accept your video reference as a warrant for what? There are still unions in Wisconsin. Your video proves nothing. But please keep using it as a reference, and I hope a lot of people who haven't already seen it get to see it. It helps to demonstrate how stupid liberals are, and how weak they are in attempting to argue something.
Leftyg said: "Corporate America should not suppress unions any more than anybody should suppress corporate America." [color=#FF0000]So far you have not demonstrated that corporate America has suppressed unions.
Leftyg said: "It is not rocket science." It is Political science, but you seem to have difficulty with any science. Leftyg goes on: "If we have an economic marketplace for labor, Master of the obvious here. :roll: workers should have rights" And workers do have rights. You just do not like it when the Law has limits as to what unions can and cannot do. Companies have rights to. The courts settle greivances that are brought to them from both sides. Leftyg: "And in right to work states, they do not have much power at all which creates this disparity."
What disparity? In any case, the Supreme Court has settled some issues and both sides must comply to the law. Quit whinning about it. Deal with it. If a play is not working very well in a game, the smart coach does not call it anymore, he changes it. If unions want to thrive again they are going to have to repackage themselves and satisfy what is needed today in the labor market.

[/quote][/color] Leftyg: "As a nation we should embark on an education program -No specification here. We already have an education program, it's called public schools, K through 12, and college.back to Leftyg: "and probably allow more immigration into the country instead of less" New topic - immigration, but still no Toulmin method of argumentation. But Republicans prefer tax cuts to investing And another topic. No Toulmin's method used here eitherin the country. Watch them go after Social Security and Medicare rather than reducing or eliminating corporate tax cuts to solve the massive deficit the tax cuts created Liberals have been peddling the same lame accusations about Republicans going after Social Security and Medicare for decades now, and both are still here. Just more fear mongering by frantic desparate liberals who have nothing but fear to offer.

Thanks again for stopping by Leftyg.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 21st, 2018, 12:40 pm

No Toulmin's model here. Where is the data of Corporate America attempting ("tried") to suppress Unions? Without data you do not even have a fact as grounds to begin your argument here. The only work that Scott Walker has done is to help workers in his state and you redefine that act as suppressing unions?
This from Pew Research:
More Americans view long-term decline in union membership negatively than positively. ... In 2017, just 10.7% of wage and salaried workers in the United States were members of labor unions, down from 20.1% in 1983 (the first year for which comparable data are available), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Jun 5, 2018
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ositively/ I have already given the decline in wages of the average American and the shear bonanza achieved at the very top.
The fact that Corporate America use unions anywhere weakens the suggestion by you that they are trying to suppress them.
Corporate America should have no right to use unions; unions should be on site whether companies like it or not.
We are supposed to accept your video reference as a warrant for what? There are still unions in Wisconsin. Your video proves nothing.
It proves that you do not have a clue. It is wrong for the government to intervene on behalf of companies against workers. Also it proves that you do not understand the basics of this argument if you cannot understand that a conversation between a corporate fat cat and a sitting governor (a conversation of this nature) is wrong.
But please keep using it as a reference, and I hope a lot of people who haven't already seen it get to see it. It helps to demonstrate how stupid liberals are, and how weak they are in attempting to argue something.
No, stupid people think liberals are stupid. Anybody with a room temperature IQ would understand that combinations between business and government is a step towards fascism, but you are so uninformed you do not know that and failing that, you fail to see that such a combine undermines the very principles of the free market.
Leftyg said: "Corporate America should not suppress unions any more than anybody should suppress corporate America." [color=#FF0000]So far you have not demonstrated that corporate America has suppressed unions.
Well people in my job cannot unionize for their rights. I have that evidence as well as many other pieces on this thread. And what have you contributed? Answer: nothing but vacuous opinion. Are you really Bob Frantz? That is his MO: claim something and then make no effort to prove it. Michaels, comeback with something please, and not some vacuous assertion. BTW, before you asperse the intelligence of liberals, check your own.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 24th, 2018, 10:43 am

Leftyg: This from Pew Research:
More Americans view long-term decline in union membership negatively than positively. ... In 2017, just 10.7% of wage and salaried workers in the United States were members of labor unions, down from 20.1% in 1983 (the first year for which comparable data are available), according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Jun 5, 2018

First, a view of something does not equate to what that thing is. The Liberal message has been one of cultural relativity, political correctness, and non judgemental attitude towards everything. So, if personal views on marriage or religion are different than others, neither should supersede the other and that would include views on union membership. Even you Leftyg, quoted John Stuart Mill who said: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion [view], mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
So views are views nothing more and nothing less. The more pertinent question is value. If just 10.7% of wage and salaried workers in the United States were members of labor unions, what does that imply as to the value of labor unions for wage and salaried workers in the United States?

Second, your reference says "More Americans view long-term decline in union membership negatively than positively." Of the demographics identified in the poll, there was no breakdown of who in the poll were members of unions and who were not. I would be interested in knowing that.

Next:
Leftyg: I have already given the decline in wages of the average American and the shear bonanza achieved at the very top.

Yes, and I have already addressed "Your View" on this in my other thread - http://www.clevelandtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3742#p44506
"As Dow Sets Another Record High, Leftists, continue to repeat. But in my thread I point out that wages have been rising for much of the American workforce. The economy is booming, satisfaction with the direction of the economy is at a 12 year high, there are more jobs in the United States than there are workers to fill them, and currently there is a buyers market for holiday workers, due to the shortage of people signing up to work for the holiday season.
It has been quite a turnaround from the previous occupant in the White House. Even Real USA said, regarding the news on the economy:
If these trend continues its going to be hard for the dems to win..


[quote Leftyg:]Corporate America should have no right to use unions; unions should be on site whether companies like it or not.[/quote]
[color=#FF0000]I think you need a remedial course in Liberalism. You seem to forget that you Liberals believe in "Pro-Choice." I am not hearing that from your last statement: Corporate America should have no right to use unions; unions should be on site whether companies like it or not.
You know that from your own reference, the majorities view Unions and Corporations favorably. Your poll showed that 53% hold a favorable view of corporations.
Now if Union membership is declining (which it is), and your in favor of Unions (which you are) shouldn't you be happy for the corporations that use unions. Instead your not happy. Your position is to force all corporations to be include union membership. The last occupant of the White House forced everybody to buy medical insurance whether they could afford it or not. And if they managed to buy the insurance, many could not afford to use it once they had it. I can see where your influence come from.


[quote Leftyg]It proves that you do not have a clue. What proves that I don't have a clue? You have not done anything to suppport your position regarding Corporate America trying to suppress unions.It is wrong for the government to intervene on behalf of companies against workers. Your statement implys that that is what is going on here, but (again) you have supplied nothing to corroborate that allegation. Your video reference does not prove anything. A conversation between two people did not force the citizens in Wisconsin to vote for the right to work or against it. The voters chose what they wanted and they chose to be a right to work state. Also it proves that you do not understand the basics of this argument if you cannot understand that a conversation between a corporate fat cat and a sitting governor (a conversation of this nature) is wrong. A conversation is the very essence of Free Speech. Because you don't like it does not make it wrong. Your showing a lot of intolerance here for a "Liberal."[/quote]

[quote Leftyg] Anybody with a room temperature IQ would understand that combinations between business and government is a step towards fascism, but you are so uninformed you do not know that and failing that, you fail to see that such a combine undermines the very principles of the free market. Absolutely no support provided for any of these statements. When you don't provide support for a statement, your statement does not have a base. Your statement has been rendered baseless. The only thing that is easy to see for most people is that the combination between the internet and your laptop is a step towards idiocy[/quote]

[quote Leftyg:] Well people in my job cannot unionize for their rights.[/quote] Anecdotal, but even so, that usually means that you are in a better position than others. How does that affect your rights. If you are going to say it denies your freedom to assemble, it doesn't. You can voluntarily choose to accept a non union position, and you can voluntarily choose to reject one and find a different position or job that would allow you to become a union member.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 24th, 2018, 2:58 pm

First, a view of something does not equate to what that thing is. The Liberal message has been one of cultural relativity, political correctness, and non judgemental attitude towards everything. So, if personal views on marriage or religion are different than others, neither should supersede the other and that would include views on union membership. Even you Leftyg, quoted John Stuart Mill who said: "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion [view], mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
So views are views nothing more and nothing less. The more pertinent question is value. If just 10.7% of wage and salaried workers in the United States were members of labor unions, what does that imply as to the value of labor unions for wage and salaried workers in the United States?
[/quote It implies that corporate america has made it much harder for workers to join unions. And it demonstrates how so much of income since 1980 has gone to the top one percent. That is not hard. And Michaels I believe in free speech, but I also believe that you should back up your free speech with factual information. I do not think you should be banned; I think you should be enlightended and say things that enlighten me
Second, your reference says "More Americans view long-term decline in union membership negatively than positively." Of the demographics identified in the poll, there was no breakdown of who in the poll were members of unions and who were not. I would be interested in knowing that.
Most Americans like making more money and not less. And when coproatissts limit the right of a worker to have a union then they are denying workers the right to get what the market fairly says their labor is worth.

Yes, and I have already addressed "Your View" on this in my other thread - viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3742#p44506
"As Dow Sets Another Record High, Leftists, continue to repeat. But in my thread I point out that wages have been rising for much of the American workforce. The economy is booming, satisfaction with the direction of the economy is at a 12 year high, there are more jobs in the United States than there are workers to fill them, and currently there is a buyers market for holiday workers, due to the shortage of people signing up to work for the holiday season.
It has been quite a turnaround from the previous occupant in the White House. Even Real USA said, regarding the news on the economy:
We understaand that. But this trend began long before Trump. When Obama came into office the unemployment rate was 7.8%; when he left it was 4.8% https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 When he came into office the Dow Jones was in the seven thousand range; when he left it was almost 20 thousand https://www.macrotrends.net/1358/dow-jo ... t-10-years. Yes prosperity has grown underPresident Trump, but it actually grew more under Obama

When I said unions should be on site whether corporations want them or not Michaels said
[color=#FF0000]I think you need a remedial course in Liberalism. You seem to forget that you Liberals believe in "Pro-Choice." I am not hearing that from your last statement: Corporate America should have no right to use unions; unions should be on site whether companies like it or not.
You know that from your own reference, the majorities view Unions and Corporations favorably. Your poll showed that 53% hold a favorable view of corporations.
Now if Union membership is declining (which it is), and your in favor of Unions (which you are) shouldn't you be happy for the corporations that use unions. Instead your not happy. Your position is to force all corporations to be include union membership. The last occupant of the White House forced everybody to buy medical insurance whether they could afford it or not. And if they managed to buy the insurance, many could not afford to use it once they had it. I can see where your influence come from.
Yes I do believe in choice for workers, but I do not think an employer should make it for them, and I think employers should give employees accurate information instead of lies that serve corporate interests. My position is to let all workers have representation whether corporations like it or not.

The last occupant of the White House was right. Without an individual mandate, insurance premiums will sky-rocket; that should not require rocket science to explain. This goes back to the old chess nut that we have the highest health care costs in the world https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... unt-health And we do not have the best health care outcomes. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/cha ... -countries

The point is a society run for the interests of the few is a lousy society. Whether it is health care or wages, the best going only to the top is not healthy.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 24th, 2018, 8:34 pm

The bottom line here Leftyg is that you are taking a protectionist stand for some workers, and condemn a "Corporate America" that you don't understand. It appears you have a lack of trust in laborers being able to think for themselves and consider what is best in their interest. And you have made it clear that only by doing what you say is what is best for labor. The fact is that there are workers that make more and less than those in unions. Those that make more outside of Unions do not need advice on what is in their best interests. Those that make less than those in unions, do so for a number of reasons including the fact that they may not be able to form a union at their place of work either.
Your last occupant in the White House was wrong. He had an individual mandate and insurance premiums still "sky- rocketed." It's not rocket science. He was an incompetent idiot who had no answers and in the end seemed more preoccupied with building as favorable a legacy as he could imagine and he did just that. In his own imagination, Obama built a great legacy.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 25th, 2018, 4:31 pm

The bottom line here Leftyg is that you are taking a protectionist stand for some workers, and condemn a "Corporate America" that you don't understand.

It is not a protectionist view; it is a competitive view. Bosses should not be able to dictate worker wages; that should be done by workers and management with an eye to mutual self-interest.


It appears you have a lack of trust in laborers being able to think for themselves and consider what is best in their interest. And you have made it clear that only by doing what you say is what is best for labor. The fact is that there are workers that make more and less than those in unions. Those that make more outside of Unions do not need advice on what is in their best interests. Those that make less than those in unions, do so for a number of reasons including the fact that they may not be able to form a union at their place of work either.
If that idea forces management to pay workers more it helps--as long as all depots are benevolent. But what happens if one is not. Look after World War 11, there was lots of good will between management and labor partly because both had endured a common enemy.

But when the kids of management took over, the tune began to change. I worked at a company where this happened. The old man, who would be well over 100 by now were he alive, started this company and at Christmas all the workers got $500 bonuses at Christmas ( a lot of money in the sixties). When he died his son-in-law took over and the bonuses stopped and it all went to management. I am all for people refusing the protection unions give them, but those people should not expect all the protection companies give them either.

Your last occupant in the White House was wrong. He had an individual mandate and insurance premiums still "sky- rocketed." It's not rocket science. He was an incompetent idiot who had no answers and in the end seemed more preoccupied with building as favorable a legacy as he could imagine and he did just that. In his own imagination, Obama built a great legacy.
Obama was not an incompetent idiot. Rates were on a much lower trajectory "The total average family plan cost increased by 43 percent from 2008 to 2016, but it went up more than double that rate — 97 percent — from 2000 to 2008." https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/emplo ... d-the-aca/ And part of that increase was due to new care requirements that Obamacare required. So Obama implementing real insurances actually cost less than faux insurance under Bush. A Yugo is cheaper than a Toyota or a Honda or a Ford, but at least, those cars work. And as we can see by comparisons with the rest of the world, what we were doing did not work. So let's sail back to the Isle of Stupid and give the Idiot Regatta another go!

In your imagination Trump is a great president; in the history books he is the most incompetent boob to ever hold the office of president. Elimination of the individual mandate is a prime example, but you evidently cannot see it.

Now that Trump has gotten rid of the individual mandate, of course, premiums have to go up; it is basic economics. The price of the uninsured (those freed by abolition of the mandate) will go up. Somebody has to pay for them.


The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153

The conservative Creed:Take all the tax cuts you can from all the necessary programs for people that you can, in all the ways you can until the structure of civilized society evaporates. leftyg
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 25th, 2018, 7:37 pm

People wonder why I bother responding to you Leftyg at all. I understand why they would ask because conversing with an ideologue means that you can expect that person to cling to their position almost to the point of discarding the facts.
Leftyg, why did you say this: "It is not a protectionist view; it is a competitive view. Bosses should not be able to dictate worker wages; that should be done by workers and management with an eye to mutual self-interest." First of all bosses usually do not set the worker's wages. I am not going to begin a remedial course here so lets move to your next statement. - "That should be done by workers and management with an eye to mutual self-interest."
Prospective employee Emily is interviewed and offered a job. Your saying that at that point, or perhaps during the interview that subject should be discussed. Now that does happen, but not everywhere, and not for every job. But normally it isn't discussed, an offered is made and the prospect takes some time to think about accepting or rejecting it. Now does the same process hold for the person working in a movie theater or a fast food restaurant? Remember how the McDonalds $15 per hour movement failed. And shortly after that were the latest innovations for robot workers replacing people.
And: - With an eye to mutual self-interest. You have no interest in the employer's self interest except maybe that he stay in business to satisfy the wish list of the worker. Look at what you replied to your next quote. "If that idea forces management to pay workers more." Nuff said.

Obama was and still is the incompetent idiot. Your blather about rates were on a much lower trajectory would be laughable if the actual consequences weren't so tragic. I have previously discussed this in "More than a complete waste of money." Obama picked his team, his administration. He accepted what he and they came up with - The ACA. He punished the young and healthy, he pushed the higher costs of services onto others. He added services not giving the citizen the choice in what to pay for. (but you want the laborer and management to work together with an eye to mutual self-interest.) Well where was the mutual self interest in the ACA? There wasn't any. Your Dictator forced it on the public. Without the understanding of human nature, without the awareness of a dynamic business model, and it blew up in his face. And you make excuses by saying it was built on a trajectory for lower rates over a length of time that means nothing to the people forced to comply to his terms here and now, not down your rosey trajectory timeline.

[quote Leftyg:]In your imagination Trump is a great president; in the history books he is the most incompetent boob to ever hold the office of president. Elimination of the individual mandate is a prime example, but you evidently cannot see it.
[/quote] In yours and Obama's imagination, Obama was a great president. You don't need imagination to know how much better President Trump is already if you just want to compare him to Obama. The facts, speak for themselves. Obamacare was on a death spiral as I chronicled. The costs for Obamacare, with the mandates were unmanageable. Not renewing the individual mandate was the most practical thing to do but you and your Democrats did not want to do that. No you wanted to live in your make believe world where there was nothing wrong with Obamacare, just as you said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
No, in the infinite wisdom of the Democrats, all you needed was to throw more money into an unworkable business model. Throw more money, take it from the taxpayer, because they always have an endless suppyly of money, and or print the money because that is what the government does. The government can always print more money, it's not like that would ever have a negative impact on the economy. I mean we are not Venezuela or Zimbabwe.


Your pathetic attempt to make up a faux conservative creed based upon the liberal creed is sad. You splash around with the flailing arms of a drowning person. Conservative programs vs. Liberal programs are being compared to right now. The public is happier now with the way things are going in spite of all the attempts by Liberals to lie about it.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby leftyg » September 26th, 2018, 10:40 am

Michaels says:
People wonder why I bother responding to you Leftyg at all. I understand why they would ask because conversing with an ideologue means that you can expect that person to cling to their position almost to the point of discarding the facts.
What people wonder why you bother to respond to me? You are the boy that discards facts and posts as proof the ramblings of right wing ideologues which are not facts and hardly sound opinions. I give facts on health care, and you give claims and opinions. It is absolutely true that health care costs went up 97% in the eight years of Bush and 43% in the eight years Obama. And btw your hero got laughed at during his United Nations speech yesterday because he could not stay away from his pathetic self-promotions https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/25/politics ... index.html.

You think Kurt Schlichter, Bob Frantz and Trump are all smart people; it pleases me then that you think I am a stupid ideologue because you live in an intellectual and philosophical bizarro world.
In my world facts are facts and opinions are based on a thoughtful interpretation of facts; in your world opinions are facts, actual facts are considered fake news and things you want to believe get elevated to fact status, "truthiness." Your comments are almost always devoid of context.

You ramble on:
Leftyg, why did you say this: "It is not a protectionist view; it is a competitive view. Bosses should not be able to dictate worker wages; that should be done by workers and management with an eye to mutual self-interest." First of all bosses usually do not set the worker's wages. I am not going to begin a remedial course here so lets move to your next statement. - "That should be done by workers and management with an eye to mutual self-interest."
Prospective employee Emily is interviewed and offered a job. Your saying that at that point, or perhaps during the interview that subject should be discussed. Now that does happen, but not everywhere, and not for every job. But normally it isn't discussed, an offered is made and the prospect takes some time to think about accepting or rejecting it. Now does the same process hold for the person working in a movie theater or a fast food restaurant? Remember how the McDonalds $15 per hour movement failed. And shortly after that were the latest innovations for robot workers replacing people.
And: - With an eye to mutual self-interest. You have no interest in the employer's self interest except maybe that he stay in business to satisfy the wish list of the worker. Look at what you replied to your next quote. "If that idea forces management to pay workers more." Nuff said.
Yeah throw in a straw person named Emily which I never mentioned and is not pertinent. And it is a pointless ramble which defends nothing. The idea of workers with full information about the business they work in and a bargaining unit to protect the employees is foreign to you. I am for a free market work place. People who cannot keep up will still be fired. But you write "you have no interest in the employers self interest" which is wrong. It is like telling an umpire that he has no interest in Team A's success because he also considers the needs of Team B. The only time we will have equitable labor markets is when both management and labor get together and create them. You are just all in for team A (management) while you accuse me (an umpire) of siding with Team B when in fact all I am doing is seeking fairness.

And about the $15 wage at McDonalds: it would be worth $2.07 in 1968 dollars, just above the $1.60 minimum wage. You stand for the interests of the powerful and against those of the mass of people who form the demand base for our economy. Last time I checked the bosses were doing pretty well. And you have the audacity to say "nuff said" a if you had made a point. Indeed enough said I think I have countered it. A multi billion dollar corporation ought to be able to pay its workers a living wage. It should because the burden gets passed to the state in the form of health care costs, food stamps and other necessities which are the responsibility of the employer and not tax payers.

I wrote about you:
In your imagination Trump is a great president; in the history books he is the most incompetent boob to ever hold the office of president. Elimination of the individual mandate is a prime example, but you evidently cannot see it.

You responded to that with this nungget:
In yours and Obama's imagination, Obama was a great president. You don't need imagination to know how much better President Trump is already if you just want to compare him to Obama.
OK: under Obama unemployment went from 7,8% to 4.8% https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 Black unemployment dropped from 12.7% when Obama took office to 7.8%; under Trump it has further dropped to 6.3%. The stock market rose from 7949 to almost 20 thousand under Obama; it now is at about 26 thousand. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer ... office.asp And health care costs, the rise of which slowed are beginning to heat up

You write:
The facts, speak for themselves
. They certainly do.

Obamacare was on a death spiral as I chronicled. The costs for Obamacare, with the mandates were unmanageable. Not renewing the individual mandate was the most practical thing to do but you and your Democrats did not want to do that. No you wanted to live in your make believe world where there was nothing wrong with Obamacare,
As I said Obamacare will be struggling because of the repeal of the individual mandate which you are evidently not equipped to understand. You can destroy something if you want to.


just as you said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
No, in the infinite wisdom of the Democrats, all you needed was to throw more money into an unworkable business model.

Yeah every other advanced country in the world has a form of single payer health care and they are doing fine means nothing to you because as you demonstrate you believe in an ideology which you cannot defend. You then say I do not defend my views after I present copious and actual information. It kills you, and I bet it bothers you that the United Nations laughed at Trump's bravado yesterday just as a good many readers of this exchange should be laughing at you. You believe in a failed ideology and Thomas Huxley famously said: "The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/thomas_huxley_101763 https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/thomas_huxley_101763

Throw more money, take it from the taxpayer, because they always have an endless suppyly of money, and or print the money because that is what the government does. The government can always print more money, it's not like that would ever have a negative impact on the economy.
You are going on an ofer (hitless in several at bats) because we have virtually the lowest taxes of any country in the world at about 26% while Mexico at 17% and Chile at about 21% are the two lowest, and aren't they paradises?

I mean we are not Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
That is an insane comparison with two third world countries. It is simply idiotic.
leftyg
 
Posts: 5330
Joined: February 10th, 2011, 7:40 pm

Re: Big Labor Loses in Latest SCOTUS ruling

Postby Michaels153 » September 26th, 2018, 5:48 pm

"For contemporary liberalism, then, the standard, typical or average order of priorities runs: Peace, Justice, Freedom, Liberty....
Nearly all Liberals --and most non-liberals also, for that matter --invoke the name of Freedom the way a drill sergeant invokes his favorite obscenity. It takes closer study to find out just what they mean by that term and how they rate it under pressure. Very often we find that what is really being talked about has little to do with individual freedom, but is basically a question of advancing the interests of an economic, racial or religious group that the Freedom-invoker feels has a status below what it ought to be. Sometimes it is easy to prove that individual freedom is not really involved. For example, a liberal may call on Freedom in demanding that trade unions should have the right to recruit members without interference, to strike, to enjoy immunity from anti-monopoly legislation, etc.; and also to establish a closed shop, with automatic deduction of union dues from the paychecks of all workers. Without attempting to judge the merits of these two sets of proposals, is is obvious enough that by any normal understanding the second--that is, the compulsory closed shop and dues checkoff--is not an enhancement but a deprivation of individual freedom. This is accepted because of the belief that the enhanced social power of the unions taken as groups or collectivities will help raise the living standards and political power of the members.
In this practical showdown, Justice is preferred to Freedom; a certain amount of individual Freedom is sacrificed to the presumptive advance of social justice. And you will search a long time to find a liberal who will disagree with this specific choice, no matter how fervent are his usual hymns to Freedom. Of course, if he is slick at words he will put together an elegant explanation of how the seeming curtailment of individual freedom in the particular instance, by improving the security and mobility and this and that of each worker and lessening his helplessness before the phalanx of monopoly capital, has the ultimate effect of increasing the worker's genuine individual freedom. But that sort of talk shifts us from the real world into the fantasy world of pure ideology, where anything goes and there's no point of arguing."
Can you guess who said this? This was written in 1964. The author wrote: "I dedicate this book to all liberals of good will."
The Liberal of today doesn't sound any different than the liberal back in 1964. Not very progressive is that? You define the terms the way you want to. You redefine good and bad to describe the actions that you agree or disagree with. It does not matter what the law says, or anybody else says. So you have no problem saying; "unions should be on site whether corporations want them or not." "IF that idea forces management to pay workers more it helps."
Mark Janus is not a corporatist. And you are a liberal ideologue.
The Liberal Creed: Take all the money you can, from all the people you can, in all the ways that you can, for as long as you can.
Michaels153
 
Posts: 2218
Joined: February 9th, 2011, 3:25 pm


Return to Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest