(03-13-2014 11:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:12 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  it's about crippling unions influence in politics. Just another piece being moved on the chess board. It will be check mate within a generation.

Union influence in politics ought to reflect it's membership.

You just hit the nail on the head. According to Mach and John the membership is too stupid to know what's good for them - only the Union Bosses know what's best and can protect them.

(03-14-2014 07:15 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:57 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:12 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  it's about crippling unions influence in politics. Just another piece being moved on the chess board. It will be check mate within a generation.

Union influence in politics ought to reflect it's membership.

You just hit the nail on the head. According to Mach and John the membership is too stupid to know what's good for them - only the Union Bosses know what's best and can protect them.

It is part of the Liberal mindset. No one is capable of thinking for themselves and someone must be our care takers.

(03-13-2014 11:12 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  it's about crippling unions influence in politics. Just another piece being moved on the chess board. It will be check mate within a generation.

Multiple choice:

We have to keep big

(a) corporate (check if you are a lib)
(b) union (check if you are a con)

money out of our elections.

(03-13-2014 11:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:06 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

Not by the corporations. Did you catch the part that only ten percent of current employees actually voted for a union or the number of union households that are for this bill? But if the unions provide a vital and important service then the unions have nothing to worry about, correct?

like i said......

this is a type of bill that gives your typical corporate fat cat an erection. this bill is as much about corporate interests as it is about "employee rights"

So it's a win-win situation for the employees and fat cats. Cool.

as usual you are extremely naive

And as usual you are unable to provide any justification to your trite, brusque statements. Since you can't articulate anything to support your assertions, it is more likely that it is you who are naïve, believing every leftist position simply because.

(03-14-2014 08:24 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:20 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:13 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 11:06 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Not by the corporations. Did you catch the part that only ten percent of current employees actually voted for a union or the number of union households that are for this bill? But if the unions provide a vital and important service then the unions have nothing to worry about, correct?

like i said......

this is a type of bill that gives your typical corporate fat cat an erection. this bill is as much about corporate interests as it is about "employee rights"

So it's a win-win situation for the employees and fat cats. Cool.

as usual you are extremely naive

And as usual you are unable to provide any justification to your trite, brusque statements. Since you can't articulate anything to support your assertions, it is more likely that it is you who are naïve, believing every leftist position simply because.

I agree. This legislation merely takes control out of the hands of union bosses and puts it into the hands of union members -- minus the intimidation and thuggery of the union enforcers. It means that members will now have a say in how their dues are spent and on when strikes are taken. How can anyone be against that? It means they can vote to get rid of the union if it no longer is helping employees -- also a good thing. It's no different than firing your attorney if you believe s/he is not doing a good job for you. If employees agree with what the union bosses are doing, this bill will no effect on the union. However, if they disagree, this will give them a voice and a vote.

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 09:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Fancy name for a bill that would make every corporate fat cat pop a boner if it gets passed.r

Why would you say that? This won't impact a contract and pretty much has nothing to do with employers. It's about the employees.

i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

What specifically in the law do you object to?

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 09:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Fancy name for a bill that would make every corporate fat cat pop a boner if it gets passed.r

Why would you say that? This won't impact a contract and pretty much has nothing to do with employers. It's about the employees.

i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

(03-14-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 09:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Fancy name for a bill that would make every corporate fat cat pop a boner if it gets passed.r

Why would you say that? This won't impact a contract and pretty much has nothing to do with employers. It's about the employees.

i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

But the bill does benefit workers, do you agree?

So reading this, I'm understanding that this will give power back to the one's that are breaking their backs instead of the ones negotiating contracts for them..

(03-14-2014 11:16 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Why would you say that? This won't impact a contract and pretty much has nothing to do with employers. It's about the employees.

i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

But the bill does benefit workers, do you agree?

i do not agree. it hurts workers in the longrun.

(03-14-2014 11:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:16 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

But the bill does benefit workers, do you agree?

i do not agree. it hurts workers in the longrun.

Why? Because of the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)

(03-14-2014 11:40 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:16 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

But the bill does benefit workers, do you agree?

i do not agree. it hurts workers in the longrun.

Why? Because of the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)

you need a balance. you can't have the unions hold too much power, but at the same time you can not cripple unions. we are a capitalist country, but the one drawback to capitalism is that companies/corporations see everything in strict dollar terms.

so when this type of legislation goes into effect and it does in fact cripple the unions we will see a process overtime where companies/corporations place more & more burdens on the workers at the cost of saving dollars.

(03-14-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 09:09 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Fancy name for a bill that would make every corporate fat cat pop a boner if it gets passed.r

Why would you say that? This won't impact a contract and pretty much has nothing to do with employers. It's about the employees.

i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

Can you be a little less vague on why its a bad thing? I won't hold my breath bacause I know you can't. This does nothing but reduce the least popular aspects of union while simultaneously improving worker rights and freedom. The only spin is coming from you

(03-14-2014 12:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:50 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Why would you say that? This won't impact a contract and pretty much has nothing to do with employers. It's about the employees.

i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

Can you be a little less vague on why its a bad thing? I won't hold my breath bacause I know you can't. This does nothing but reduce the least popular aspects of union while simultaneously improving worker rights and freedom. The only spin is coming from you

sorry dude but show me a CEO who won't bust in his pants the second this bill gets passed and I will show you a liar.

(03-14-2014 11:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:40 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i do not agree. it hurts workers in the longrun.

Why? Because of the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)

you need a balance. you can't have the unions hold too much power, but at the same time you can not cripple unions. we are a capitalist country, but the one drawback to capitalism is that companies/corporations see everything in strict dollar terms.

so when this type of legislation goes into effect and it does in fact cripple the unions we will see a process overtime where companies/corporations place more & more burdens on the workers at the cost of saving dollars.

You said a bunch of nothing. I felt like I was at a Tebow presser. Why does this bill "hurt workers in the longrun"? Please use parts of the law and explain why it is bad. You use circular logic and make a lot of conclusions, but you can't provide reasons.

For example:

Quote:The law says........ That will be bad because.......

(03-14-2014 12:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 12:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-13-2014 10:56 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't know about you but to me it's pretty obvious that it is just another attempt to cripple unions.

Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

Can you be a little less vague on why its a bad thing? I won't hold my breath bacause I know you can't. This does nothing but reduce the least popular aspects of union while simultaneously improving worker rights and freedom. The only spin is coming from you

sorry dude but show me a CEO who won't bust in his pants the second this bill gets passed and I will show you a liar.

Just because a CEO likes it doesn't mean it's a union killer or bad for workers.

(03-14-2014 12:23 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:40 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i do not agree. it hurts workers in the longrun.

Why? Because of the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)

you need a balance. you can't have the unions hold too much power, but at the same time you can not cripple unions. we are a capitalist country, but the one drawback to capitalism is that companies/corporations see everything in strict dollar terms.

so when this type of legislation goes into effect and it does in fact cripple the unions we will see a process overtime where companies/corporations place more & more burdens on the workers at the cost of saving dollars.

You said a bunch of nothing. I felt like I was at a Tebow presser. Why does this bill "hurt workers in the longrun"? Please use parts of the law and explain why it is bad. You use circular logic and make a lot of conclusions, but you can't provide reasons.

For example:

Quote:The law says........ That will be bad because.......

be naive all you want. i find it hilarious. you guys continue to use 1st grade level talking points and all it does is remind me as to how pathetic conservatives have become.

(03-14-2014 12:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 12:19 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 12:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 06:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Thats because you are an idiot. The facts are right there in the article that lay out how unions act on ways that go against the interests of their members. Would you lime to be forced to donate your money to a political opponent? Do you like the idea of union bosses playing games with members jobs like the Hostess situation when the union boss's job is never just in danger? 80%, bipartisan support and you don't like it because it hold unions accountable to their members. Thats just idiotic.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

no you are an idiot. this is the type of bill the most likely starts on some corporate fat cats desk and decides "what's the best way to spin this as"

Can you be a little less vague on why its a bad thing? I won't hold my breath bacause I know you can't. This does nothing but reduce the least popular aspects of union while simultaneously improving worker rights and freedom. The only spin is coming from you

sorry dude but show me a CEO who won't bust in his pants the second this bill gets passed and I will show you a liar.

Just because a CEO likes it doesn't mean it's a union killer or bad for workers.

a CEO likes it because it does indeed cripple unions.

(03-14-2014 12:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 12:23 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:40 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:31 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i do not agree. it hurts workers in the longrun.

Why? Because of the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)

you need a balance. you can't have the unions hold too much power, but at the same time you can not cripple unions. we are a capitalist country, but the one drawback to capitalism is that companies/corporations see everything in strict dollar terms.

so when this type of legislation goes into effect and it does in fact cripple the unions we will see a process overtime where companies/corporations place more & more burdens on the workers at the cost of saving dollars.

You said a bunch of nothing. I felt like I was at a Tebow presser. Why does this bill "hurt workers in the longrun"? Please use parts of the law and explain why it is bad. You use circular logic and make a lot of conclusions, but you can't provide reasons.

For example:

Quote:The law says........ That will be bad because.......

be naive all you want. i find it hilarious. you guys continue to use 1st grade level talking points and all it does is remind me as to how pathetic conservatives have become.

Dude, I am not trying to be mean, I just think it would be easier to understand your point if you make straight points. I don't agree with every point of every piece of legislation, but if you believe it is bad, point out the parts and why. That's all.

(03-14-2014 12:38 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 12:32 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 12:23 PM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(03-14-2014 11:40 AM)pharaoh0 Wrote:  Why? Because of the following:
(1)
(2)
(3)

you need a balance. you can't have the unions hold too much power, but at the same time you can not cripple unions. we are a capitalist country, but the one drawback to capitalism is that companies/corporations see everything in strict dollar terms.

so when this type of legislation goes into effect and it does in fact cripple the unions we will see a process overtime where companies/corporations place more & more burdens on the workers at the cost of saving dollars.

You said a bunch of nothing. I felt like I was at a Tebow presser. Why does this bill "hurt workers in the longrun"? Please use parts of the law and explain why it is bad. You use circular logic and make a lot of conclusions, but you can't provide reasons.

For example:

Quote:The law says........ That will be bad because.......

be naive all you want. i find it hilarious. you guys continue to use 1st grade level talking points and all it does is remind me as to how pathetic conservatives have become.

Dude, I am not trying to be mean, I just think it would be easier to understand your point if you make straight points. I don't agree with every point of every piece of legislation, but if you believe it is bad, point out the parts and why. That's all.

you need a balance. you can't have the unions hold too much power, but at the same time you can not cripple unions. we are a capitalist country, but the one drawback to capitalism is that companies/corporations see everything in strict dollar terms.

so when this type of legislation goes into effect and it does in fact cripple the unions we will see a process overtime where companies/corporations place more & more burdens on the workers at the cost of saving dollars.

i don't think i could of been any more clear. and yet for some reason i have not seen a single response to that statement and yet you guys continue to ask "what's the problem"