(07-25-2013 07:31 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

So is Mexico since GM just said they were building four plants there a couple of weeks ago, because unions would harass them even if they built them in right to work states.
So is it War with Mexico.
Cannot cut them loose, since we decided to not take them over after the Mexican War.

In order to compete with the South, you have to go to Mexico. #race2dabottom.

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

its called an unintended consequence (heck maybe thats what the big business groups who push RTW really wanted all along).

and besides cons bash libs for the same thing all the time (unintended consequences)

(07-25-2013 08:42 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

its called an unintended consequence (heck maybe thats what the big business groups who push RTW really wanted all along).

and besides cons bash libs for the same thing all the time (unintended consequences)

Unless you are a union boss you should be able to understand that "Right to Work" doesn't mean that a state does not have unions. It just means that they actually have to attract people to them instead of being a situation where you can only work at a job, or get a job by belonging to a union.

Instead of "Big Brother" Union collecting their dues automatically from the employer (or the state) , they collect them from the union member. Unions are either somewhat effective and worthwhile, or they do not get their money, because people do not have to belong to them.
It's voluntary. Would think that most people would agree with Freedom of Choice - wouldn't you?

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

Right to work just keeps unions in check.

I think the fact that this article has 23,000 likes on Facebook is quite alarming.

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

and again do you understand what "average wages" mean?

(07-25-2013 10:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

Right to work just keeps unions in check.

I do have to say Henry Cisneros and his wife made off bringing Texas A$m south

(07-25-2013 10:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

Right to work just keeps unions in check.

they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

(07-25-2013 10:38 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

and again do you understand what "average wages" mean?

Very much so

(07-25-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

Right to work just keeps unions in check.

they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

Do you not understand that is what drove business out of places like Detroit?

(07-25-2013 10:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

Right to work just keeps unions in check.

they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

Do you not understand that is what drove business out of places like Detroit?

a big part of detroits problems was the fact that other states were paying workers less, & had lower safety standards. plus the "big 3" could not make a longterm viable business plan if their lives depended on it

(07-25-2013 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

Right to work just keeps unions in check.

they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

Do you not understand that is what drove business out of places like Detroit?

a big part of detroits problems was the fact that other states were paying workers less, & had lower safety standards. plus the "big 3" could not make a longterm viable business plan if their lives depended on it

Well John, when there is a high school educated bus driver making 100k in Madison Wisconsin, it might help you understand what happened in Detroit. It's happening all over the midwest. Companies are moving to places it's easier make a profit. When unions make companies pass union costs on to the consumer, they have no choice but to leave or outsource.

Right to work is more about keeping union employees from having unfair protection that ends up hurting the company. I know it's hard for liberals to grasp that companies are the good guys. They are the job creators and make society possible. And when public unions force the People the people to pick up the tab, you end up getting your bargaining rights stripped.

There is no reason a public bus driver with a high school education should be making a doctor's salary.

(07-25-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 08:38 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 07:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they call it "right to work" but what it really should be called is "right to work.....for less"

when you have states gaining economically only because they are paying lower wages to unskilled workers, or weaker safety/environmental standards rather than being innovative its not hard to see that they are not only holding us back but weakening us.

That's not the purpose of or the outcome of right to work.

I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

Right to work just keeps unions in check.

they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

How does anyone justify paying an auto worker $98.00 per hour?
It drives up costs, causes inflation, hurts sales, prices the USA out of some of the world market, and gives Yankees big heads.

(07-25-2013 11:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Right to work just keeps unions in check.

they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

Do you not understand that is what drove business out of places like Detroit?

a big part of detroits problems was the fact that other states were paying workers less, & had lower safety standards. plus the "big 3" could not make a longterm viable business plan if their lives depended on it

Well John, when there is a high school educated bus driver making 100k in Madison Wisconsin, it might help you understand what happened in Detroit. It's happening all over the midwest. Companies are moving to places it's easier make a profit. When unions make companies pass union costs on to the consumer, they have no choice but to leave or outsource.

Right to work is more about keeping union employees from having unfair protection that ends up hurting the company. I know it's hard for liberals to grasp that companies are the good guys. They are the job creators and make society possible. And when public unions force the People the people to fit the bill, you end up getting your bargaining rights stripped.

There is no reason a public bus driver with a high school education should be making a doctor's salary.

and you cant seem to grasp that lowering the national standards for wages and safety is not an economically viable option. sure it helps big business, but it sure doesnt help working class families. throughout history we see examples of states (nations) weaken themselves because they depend on their low wages for innovation rather than innovation

(07-25-2013 11:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

Do you not understand that is what drove business out of places like Detroit?

a big part of detroits problems was the fact that other states were paying workers less, & had lower safety standards. plus the "big 3" could not make a longterm viable business plan if their lives depended on it

Well John, when there is a high school educated bus driver making 100k in Madison Wisconsin, it might help you understand what happened in Detroit. It's happening all over the midwest. Companies are moving to places it's easier make a profit. When unions make companies pass union costs on to the consumer, they have no choice but to leave or outsource.

Right to work is more about keeping union employees from having unfair protection that ends up hurting the company. I know it's hard for liberals to grasp that companies are the good guys. They are the job creators and make society possible. And when public unions force the People the people to fit the bill, you end up getting your bargaining rights stripped.

There is no reason a public bus driver with a high school education should be making a doctor's salary.

and you cant seem to grasp that lowering the national standards for wages and safety is not an economically viable option. sure it helps big business, but it sure doesnt help working class families. throughout history we see examples of states (nations) weaken themselves because they depend on their low wages for innovation rather than innovation

We lower the national average for wages by allowing illegal immigrants to work our jobs. Thank that roofer or landscaping company you see parked at 7-11 with the truckload of Mexicans for that. That is not why the unions are fleecing companies. It's a crime operation based in greed. They used to serve a noble purpose. The mafia took control of them over half a century ago.

(07-25-2013 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:18 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:05 PM)Pony94 Wrote:  I know plenty of Toyota workers in SA making $25-$50/hour plus benefits which is way above normal for the area

Right to work just keeps unions in check.

they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

Do you not understand that is what drove business out of places like Detroit?

a big part of detroits problems was the fact that other states were paying workers less, & had lower safety standards. plus the "big 3" could not make a longterm viable business plan if their lives depended on it

The Big 3 have survived despite having to put up with unreasonable union demands for decades. They survived in spite of the unions. They survived despite people being brain washed into thinking the unions were the best thing since sliced bread.
Look at this article that came out today.

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/pos...=ansauto11

Paying workers less, is called Capitalism, it's a concept pretty much the antithesis of Union's socialism ideas. Try it, it works. You pay a fair wage, people do work. It's amazing. You don't need to join a Union in order to get a job, and line the pockets of mafia type figures that are robber barons.

(07-25-2013 11:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Do you not understand that is what drove business out of places like Detroit?

a big part of detroits problems was the fact that other states were paying workers less, & had lower safety standards. plus the "big 3" could not make a longterm viable business plan if their lives depended on it

Well John, when there is a high school educated bus driver making 100k in Madison Wisconsin, it might help you understand what happened in Detroit. It's happening all over the midwest. Companies are moving to places it's easier make a profit. When unions make companies pass union costs on to the consumer, they have no choice but to leave or outsource.

Right to work is more about keeping union employees from having unfair protection that ends up hurting the company. I know it's hard for liberals to grasp that companies are the good guys. They are the job creators and make society possible. And when public unions force the People the people to fit the bill, you end up getting your bargaining rights stripped.

There is no reason a public bus driver with a high school education should be making a doctor's salary.

and you cant seem to grasp that lowering the national standards for wages and safety is not an economically viable option. sure it helps big business, but it sure doesnt help working class families. throughout history we see examples of states (nations) weaken themselves because they depend on their low wages for innovation rather than innovation

We lower the national average for wages by allowing illegal immigrants to work our jobs. Thank that roofer or landscaping company you see parked at 7-11 with the truckload of Mexicans for that. That is not why the unions are fleecing companies. It's a crime operation based in greed. They used to serve a noble purpose. The mafia took control of them over half a century ago.

oh so i guess that lets billion dollar corporations off the hook who do the exact same thing.

illegals take jobs that help mostly small business and only make up like 4% of the working population. plus most of them perform the jobs that business's struggle to find people to perform.

yeah i know they do cause issues and the problem should be fixed, but blaming them as the reason for the downfall of this country economically is just ridiculous

(07-25-2013 11:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 11:14 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:59 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:50 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(07-25-2013 10:41 PM)john01992 Wrote:  they probably do.....

but the whole issue is having economic growth because your workers are working for less than someone up north rather than be innovative is whats hurting this country more than anything.

Do you not understand that is what drove business out of places like Detroit?

a big part of detroits problems was the fact that other states were paying workers less, & had lower safety standards. plus the "big 3" could not make a longterm viable business plan if their lives depended on it

Well John, when there is a high school educated bus driver making 100k in Madison Wisconsin, it might help you understand what happened in Detroit. It's happening all over the midwest. Companies are moving to places it's easier make a profit. When unions make companies pass union costs on to the consumer, they have no choice but to leave or outsource.

Right to work is more about keeping union employees from having unfair protection that ends up hurting the company. I know it's hard for liberals to grasp that companies are the good guys. They are the job creators and make society possible. And when public unions force the People the people to fit the bill, you end up getting your bargaining rights stripped.

There is no reason a public bus driver with a high school education should be making a doctor's salary.

and you cant seem to grasp that lowering the national standards for wages and safety is not an economically viable option. sure it helps big business, but it sure doesnt help working class families. throughout history we see examples of states (nations) weaken themselves because they depend on their low wages for innovation rather than innovation

Hey, John? what's the "national standard" for wages? And who exactly is lowering them? Who should set them? You? The government? Perhaps, Me? I'd be darned plussed to do so.

What is your "economically viable option"? that should help working class families?

This, again, should be fascinating. I'm waiting with bated breath. Wow.