or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Do you think President Obama should have been in Wisconsin along side the protesters or stayed away?
post #2 of 14
Stayed away.

This is a state issue, not a federal issue*.


*Not that has stopped him (or other Presidents) in the past or likely will stop him (or other Presidents) in the future.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #3 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Do you think President Obama should have been in Wisconsin along side the protesters or stayed away?

Should have been there.

Quote:
Barack Obama in Spartanburg, SC. Nov. 3rd, 2007.

"And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #4 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Should have been there.

I agree with you 100% he should have been on the side of the laborers.He just likes to talk and no real action is inserted by him at all.
post #5 of 14
I've heard some good arguments about him not being there, though. If he were to go there, the story would be about him and not so much about the throng of workers protesting. Walker looks like a tool at the moment, but with Obama going there, the Republicans could latch onto bashing Obama instead and divert the attention away from the workers.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #6 of 14
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I've heard some good arguments about him not being there, though. If he were to go there, the story would be about him and not so much about the throng of workers protesting. Walker looks like a tool at the moment, but with Obama going there, the Republicans could latch onto bashing Obama instead and divert the attention away from the workers.

Walker is an arrogant prick that does not care about the people protesting at all. He cares about the rich pig Koch Brothers and the money they gave him for his election and what property he sold without authorization from the state. A Creep!
post #7 of 14
Federal workers don't have collective bargaining "rights".
post #8 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

Federal workers don't have collective bargaining "rights".

I would disagree...slightly.

All workers have the right to join together collectively* to negotiate and bargain with a prospective (or current) employer.

What they don't have the right to do is to force any employer to submit to this negotiation.

This, almost certainly, is what's at issue in Wisconsin (and elsewhere). It is the so-called "right" to force an employer to submit to the collective. This is not a right. It is, at best, a privilege but, more accurately, a government-granted special monopoly interest.

*Incidentally, in some cases, entrance into a union is compelled and abstaining from being in the union disallowed...so an individual cannot work for certain employers unless they join a union. This is another example of a government-granted special monopoly interest.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I would disagree...slightly.

All workers have the right to join together collectively* to negotiate and bargain with a prospective (or current) employer.

Yes.

Quote:

What they don't have the right to do is to force any employer to submit to this negotiation.

Not sure what that means. If they organize, that's exactly what they can do. That's the reason they want to organize in the first place.

Quote:

This, almost certainly, is what's at issue in Wisconsin (and elsewhere). It is the so-called "right" to force an employer to submit to the collective. This is not a right. It is, at best, a privilege but, more accurately, a government-granted special monopoly interest.

While I'm not a huge supporter of unions (though I'm in one as a teacher), I do think organizing is a "right." The entire idea is to make the employer deal with the collective.

Quote:

*Incidentally, in some cases, entrance into a union is compelled and abstaining from being in the union disallowed...so an individual cannot work for certain employers unless they join a union. This is another example of a government-granted special monopoly interest.

I've not seen that. In my state, I either join the union or pay the fair bargaining fee (equal to dues amount) and get no protections. Do you have examples? I can think of some local examples (a union pit orchestra for example, or a union construction job site) but nothing large.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #10 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Not sure what that means. If they organize, that's exactly what they can do. That's the reason they want to organize in the first place.

While I'm not a huge supporter of unions (though I'm in one as a teacher), I do think organizing is a "right." The entire idea is to make the employer deal with the collective.

I know what the idea is. And I realize they can, in practical terms, "force" the employer to come to the table. What I'm speaking about is a specific legal "right" or protection. The employer should also be within their rights to say "go fly a kite...I'll hire someone else."


Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I've not seen that. In my state, I either join the union or pay the fair bargaining fee (equal to dues amount) and get no protections. Do you have examples? I can think of some local examples (a union pit orchestra for example, or a union construction job site) but nothing large.

See here:

Quote:
A union shop is a form of a union security clause under which the employer agrees to hire either labor union members or nonmembers but all non-union employees must become union members within a specified period of time or lose their jobs.

Under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, a union may require that employees either join the union or pay the equivalent of union dues. Nonmembers who object to that requirement may be compelled to pay only that portion of union dues that is attributable to the cost of representing employees in collective bargaining and in providing services to all represented employees, but not, with certain exceptions, to the union's political activities or organizing employees of other employers.

and here:

Quote:
The National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act (after its sponsor, Senator Robert F. Wagner) (Pub.L. 74-198, 49 Stat. 449, codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 151–169), is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions, engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in support of their demands.

Quote:
The NLRA, as enacted in 1935, defined and prohibited five unfair labor practices. These prohibitions still exist, while others have been added under later legislation. The original employer unfair labor practices consisted of:

- Refusing to bargain collectively with the representative of the employer's employees. 8(a)(5)

Quote:
The key principles also include:

- Promotion of the practice and procedure of collective bargaining.
- Employers have a duty to bargain with the representative of its employees.

Note that I would also be opposed to these aspects of the Taft–Hartley Act:

Quote:
The Taft–Hartley Act prohibited jurisdictional strikes, wildcat strikes, solidarity or political strikes, secondary boycotts, secondary and mass picketing, closed shops, and monetary donations by unions to federal political campaigns. It also required union officers to sign non-communist affidavits with the government.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #11 of 14
I'm for freedom. Go ahead and form your union (aka labor contractor). If you can strike a deal with the employer great. If the employer strikes a deal with another contractor then your out of luck.

Public service unions have over played their hand.

I know someone, high school grad, that works in a steel mill. Dirty dangerous work. He fell into the acid vat one day while doing a repair. It was empty. His union is hanging him out to dry on hours and job protection. Ignoring their own contract. He needs a strong union.


Who are teachers fighting against, "The Man"? Teachers have advanced degrees, highly educated. But they need their union to negotiate for them because they are so darn oh-pressed by The Man? Who's The Man here? Greedy evil russian owned steel mill CEO? Um? The Man is the politician that the union put in place in the election. Where did the union get all the money they use for political activity? Union dues! Where did those come from? Sucked out of teacher pay checks. Who pays the teachers? I know! The politicians are spending their own money! They are spending tax payer money. The fix was in between the politicians and the unions without spending a dime of either of their money.

In the midst of a down economy with at best no pay increases and at worst lost jobs and foreclosures the public service unions are whining that the pay increase they get that is not as large as the one they negotiated is actually a pay cut.

So the little guy is out of a job and home and the 400lb gorilla public service union is trying to tell us that they are the oh-pressed ones.
post #12 of 14
The party of "no" has been defeated.

GOP Ends Union Stalemate
post #13 of 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by FloorJack View Post

The party of "no" has been defeated.

GOP Ends Union Stalemate

This part is just rich:

Quote:
Democrats complained that their political rivals had abused their power. Spectators in the senate gallery screamed, "You are cowards," while the vote was taken.

The politicians who stood up and voted are cowards, the ones who scurried off to hide are not. And the Republicans are abusing their power? Possibly. But how quickly we forget the manner in which Obamacare was foisted on the nation. It seems the tactics were strikingly similar.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #14 of 14
^ One thing that completely disappoints me how the rhetoric flip flops when the other party is in power.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider