When Did Liberals & Progressives Suddenly Become Anti-Union?

[AmazonTania]

The moment they stated their opposition against the Government Shutdown. In order to understand these comparisons, let's start off with some basic ideas professed by Government sympathisers:



Republicans are against the Affordable Care Act.
Republicans do not want to fund the Affordable Care Act.
Both sides negotiate on the terms of the appropiartions of federal funds.
Both sides disagree on the terms.
Republicans did not get what they want, so as a result, they shut the Government down.
Republicans are throwing a tantrum and holding the country hostage.
Republicans are sabotaging the economy.


I'm not going to debate whether these points are true or not; however, if it is bad for the public sector to behave this way, why is it acceptable for the private sector Unions to behave in his fashion? To illustrate this, we ca go line by line and point out exact how unions behave when they don't get their way.



Unions are against a pay cut.
Unions don't want to have their wages cut.
Unions negotiate with their employers for a better contract.
Both sides disagree on the terms.
Unions did not get what they want, so as a result, they are shutting the business down.
Unions are holding the business hostage by forcing other employees not to work.
Unions are sabotaging the business by forcing customers not to patrionise the business.


See a correlation? If you do, then you'll understand the hypocrisy of those who are against the Government shutdown. I have nothing against unions, as long as they are voluntary. I have nothing against the right to organise, petition, collectively bargain, and most of all, strike. If you are Pro-Union, then you must be for all of these things, including the right for a Union to throw a bitchfit, tantrum, collective sabotage and shutdown of a private sector business.

It's perfectly reasonable to be Pro-Union and Anti-Government Shutdown, but not both.

[patrickt]

It's futile to look for rational behavior with liberals. Unions are rational. They're extortionists. They have zero loyalty to anyone or anything. Sweetheart contracts are traditional if the money's there and robbing the workers of their pension funds isn't even big news.

Liberals, are irrational or at the very least seem irrational because they have to lie constantly. If they told the truth, they would lose power and that is unimaginable for liberals.

[jillian]

The moment they stated their opposition against the Government Shutdown. In order to understand these comparisons, let's start off with some basic ideas professed by Government sympathisers:


Republicans are against the Affordable Care Act.
Republicans do not want to fund the Affordable Care Act.
Both sides negotiate on the terms of the appropiartions of federal funds.
Both sides disagree on the terms.
Republicans did not get what they want, so as a result, they shut the Government down.
Republicans are throwing a tantrum and holding the country hostage.
Republicans are sabotaging the economy.

I'm not going to debate whether these points are true or not; however, if it is bad for the public sector to behave this way, why is it acceptable for the private sector Unions to behave in his fashion? To illustrate this, we ca go line by line and point out exact how unions behave when they don't get their way.


Unions are against a pay cut.
Unions don't want to have their wages cut.
Unions negotiate with their employers for a better contract.
Both sides disagree on the terms.
Unions did not get what they want, so as a result, they are shutting the business down.
Unions are holding the business hostage by forcing other employees not to work.
Unions are sabotaging the business by forcing customers not to patrionise the business.

See a correlation? If you do, then you'll understand the hypocrisy of those who are against the Government shutdown. I have nothing against unions, as long as they are voluntary. I have nothing against the right to organise, petition, collectively bargain, and most of all, strike. If you are Pro-Union, then you must be for all of these things, including the right for a Union to throw a bitchfit, tantrum, collective sabotage and shutdown of a private sector business.

It's perfectly reasonable to be Pro-Union and Anti-Government Shutdown, but not both.

false comparison

when your basic premise is incorrect, there's really nothing to "debate"

[Alyosha]

false comparison

when your basic premise is incorrect, there's really nothing to "debate"

Why is it a false comparison? When Hostess was going to shut down everyone on the left was like "oh well" even though thousands would be out of jobs for good--unlike this shut down that was just a furlough.

The principle is the same, people were willing to collapse the business rather than work with each other.

btw, once again, I was consistent on my position.

[AmazonTania]

false comparison

when your basic premise is incorrect, there's really nothing to "debate"

There is nothing to debate because it's already evident that you are a hypocrite.

[kilgram]

If the business is doing something that is absolutely against the rights of the workers is normal that they will try to defend themselves.

What we see with the Republicans is the typical strategy of the conservative, the same that the PP did in Spain when they were opposition, say no to everything, even when there are laws that even they applied regionally or even later they proposed a similar one. They are pure hypocrisy.

[Mr Happy]

It's perfectly reasonable to be Pro-Union and Anti-Government Shutdown, but not both.

Your last sentence doesn't make sense. Is the bolded 'and' supposed to be 'or'?

As far as your premise. It is false. Apples and oranges. Nice try but no cigar..

A union is there - in the most - to protect peoples working conditions. The govt shutdown is mainly politically motivated. Unions aren't.

[jillian]

i tried to tell her it was a false equivalency. that seemed to get her into a snit

[Libhater]

Your last sentence doesn't make sense. Is the bolded 'and' supposed to be 'or'?

As far as your premise. It is false. Apples and oranges. Nice try but no cigar..

A union is there - in the most - to protect peoples working conditions. The govt shutdown is mainly politically motivated. Unions aren't.


Unions are not politically motivated? WOW, what a WHOPPER!!!!!!

[Mr Happy]

Unions are not politically motivated? WOW, what a WHOPPER!!!!!!

They might have political connections, but that is not their primary role. Sure, they try and wrangle the masses at election time, but I used to belong to a union and I voted National (our version of your GoP). Generally they are there to try and get better conditions etc. The shutdown is purely political. Nothing more, nothing less...

[jillian]

wanting a living wage is now "political"?

i suspect only if you're afraid they'll work for politicians who support workers having good working conditions and living wages....

perhaps the radical right should take positions that don't hurt people. *Shrug*

[Alyosha]

Your last sentence doesn't make sense. Is the bolded 'and' supposed to be 'or'?

As far as your premise. It is false. Apples and oranges. Nice try but no cigar..

A union is there - in the most - to protect peoples working conditions. The govt shutdown is mainly politically motivated. Unions aren't.

You should come to the US sometime. Most unions are quite political, giving large donations to the Democratic party. Detroit probably wants to thank them right now for choosing the party that destroyed the city.

[Alyosha]

wanting a living wage is now "political"?

i suspect only if you're afraid they'll work for politicians who support workers having good working conditions and living wages....

perhaps the radical right should take positions that don't hurt people. *Shrug*

What is a living wage?

It's a buzz word that speaks to only one end of the economic apparatus. The costs of goods, the cost of labor, etc--these things have as much to do with what's going on inside the Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs as anything in Washington.

Interest rates are God in the financial industry and we turned that power over to a non-government entity.

[AmazonTania]

Your last sentence doesn't make sense. Is the bolded 'and' supposed to be 'or'?

As far as your premise. It is false. Apples and oranges. Nice try but no cigar..

A union is there - in the most - to protect peoples working conditions. The govt shutdown is mainly politically motivated. Unions aren't.

Anyone can argue that the purpose of Government is to protect individuals or constituents. Anyone can argue that unions are politically motivated. There is nothing apples and oranges about it.

It doesn't matter if it's political or not. The purpose of business negotiation is to argue for the best terms possible. People negotiate on their terms, while others negotiate for theirs and the purpose is to try to find a middle ground. If a middle ground isn't reached, there is no business. If there is no agreement between a vendor and a seller, there is no commerce. If there is no agreement between a candidate for a job and an employer, a position is not filled. If there is no agreement between a union and a business, there is is no productivity. If there is no agreement between Republicans and Democrats on where funds are allocated, there is no Government to run. It's that simple.

It doesn't matter if you are negotiating for employee benefits, where federal funds are allocated, which restaurant to eat, etc. It's a negotiating . You either believe it's okay to ruin everything for everyone when your terms are not met, or you don't. Anything short of that is abject hypocrisy. When you accidentally stumble onto the negotiating table for yourself, you'll learn that business is not a one way street, no matter what the terms or the situation is. Until then, my point stands and you are wrong.

[Chris]

i tried to tell her it was a false equivalency. that seemed to get her into a snit

And you were challenged on that. If you don't defend you point, you lose it.

[Mr Happy]

Anyone can argue that the purpose of Government is to protect individuals or constituents. Anyone can argue that unions are politically motivated. There is nothing apples and oranges about it.

It doesn't matter if it's political or not. The purpose of business negotiation is to argue for the best terms possible. People negotiate on their terms, while others negotiate for theirs and the purpose is to try to find a middle ground. If a middle ground isn't reached, there is no business. If there is no agreement between a vendor and a seller, there is no commerce. If there is no agreement between a candidate for a job and an employer, a position is not filled. If there is no agreement between a union and a business, there is is no productivity. If there is no agreement between Republicans and Democrats on where funds are allocated, there is no Government to run. It's that simple.

It doesn't matter if you are negotiating for employee benefits, where federal funds are allocated, which restaurant to eat, etc. It's a negotiating . You either believe it's okay to ruin everything for everyone when your terms are not met, or you don't. Anything short of that is abject hypocrisy. When you accidentally stumble onto the negotiating table for yourself, you'll learn that business is not a one way street, no matter what the terms or the situation is. Until then, my point stands and you are wrong.

I am not wrong, you are wrong. And it is not hypocrisy. Taking each situation on its merits is not wrong. You cannot put all situations under one umbrella without looking into the unique features of said situation.

[jillian]

And you were challenged on that. If you don't defend you point, you lose it.

Thanks for your opinion.

[Chris]

Thanks for your opinion.

You're welcome.

Well? You going to defend your point, or dance around it?

[AmazonTania]

I am not wrong, you are wrong. And it is not hypocrisy. Taking each situation on its merits is not wrong. You cannot put all situations under one umbrella without looking into the unique features of said situation.

You can look at the unique features all you'd like. It doesn't change the premise of what both parties are trying to do: Negotiate. People negotiate to make themselves better off. Period. If you think it's justified to act inappropriately when you don't get your way in some aspects, but not others, that is contradictory.

That's special pleading, and also hypocrisy.

[Mr Happy]

You can look at the unique features all you'd like. It doesn't change the premise of what both parties are trying to do: Negotiate. People negotiate to make themselves better off. Period. If you think it's justified to act inappropriately when you don't get your way in some aspects, but not others, that is contradictory.

That's special pleading, and also hypocrisy.

We agree to disagree.

[Chris]

We agree to disagree.

What's your disagreement, can we have that at least?

[Mr Happy]

What's your disagreement, can we have that at least?

I already gave it to you.

AT seems to think that because both situations involve negotiating then the circumstances are the same. That's like saying the local town alderman from Nowheresville, Alaska and the president of the US are both politicians, therefore their standing on the political landscape is the same. The only thing they have in common is that they are politicians. That's about it. Her argument is disingenuous at best...

[Alyosha]

I already gave it to you.

AT seems to think that because both situations involve negotiating then the circumstances are the same. That's like saying the local town alderman from Nowheresville, Alaska and the president of the US are both politicians, therefore their standing on the political landscape is the same. The only thing they have in common is that they are politicians. That's about it. Her argument is disingenuous at best...

Not exactly. It would be like saying if they were both Republicans or both Democrats then their opinions should be the same.


People should be consistent in their position or else face accusations of double standards.

[Mr Happy]

Not exactly. It would be like saying if they were both Republicans or both Democrats then their opinions should be the same.


People should be consistent in their position or else face accusations of double standards.

Not really. There are even nuances that have to be taken into account. Cruz and McCain belong to the same party, yet they seem very different, no?

[Alyosha]

Not really. There are even nuances that have to be taken into account. Cruz and McCain belong to the same party, yet they seem very different, no?

Completely different. We're speaking to moral values, approach, and standards. If it is "extortion", ergo "bad", to stop or delay a particular proceeding because it will create job loss and cripple an entity economically, then it should always been called "extortion", ergo bad.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans fail at having consistent standards.

In the case of Hostess, the Republicans sided with the entity being held up and the Democrats sided with the "extortionists". With the case of this shut down the situation is reversed.

In short, they're both full of shit with their goose-gander crap. It's why I wouldn't shed a tear if a sinkhole opened up under Washington and took them all with it.

[Mr Happy]

It's hard to disagree with you on that last point..

[Chris]

I already gave it to you.

AT seems to think that because both situations involve negotiating then the circumstances are the same. That's like saying the local town alderman from Nowheresville, Alaska and the president of the US are both politicians, therefore their standing on the political landscape is the same. The only thing they have in common is that they are politicians. That's about it. Her argument is disingenuous at best...


Except she doesn't, her comparison is based on negotiating, which you recognize. You don't seem to have an argument with that point.

[AmazonTania]

I already gave it to you.

AT seems to think that because both situations involve negotiating then the circumstances are the same. That's like saying the local town alderman from Nowheresville, Alaska and the president of the US are both politicians, therefore their standing on the political landscape is the same. The only thing they have in common is that they are politicians. That's about it. Her argument is disingenuous at best...

I never said the circumstances were the same. I've even taken the time to list four different circumstances where people negotiate. My argument is consistent. Your premise is disingenuous, as you are implying that it is only right for people to throw a tantrum (particularly unions) because the ends justify the means. Everyone negotiates to make themselves better off. For what reason is not my concern. The concern is why is it okay for unions to engage in these tactics, but not the public sector (or anyone else for that matter). That's an illogical fallacy.

How would it work on an individual level, no unions, no political parties? If I am selling a £200 pair of shoes on eBay and the minimum required bid is £20. I obviously want to get the most money I can for these shoes, while the bidder wants to get the shoes for the least amount of money. Very few people seems to be interested and the bids are not increasing. What do I do? Do I close the auction because I'm not getting enough bids? Do I tell my friends to engage in a fake bidding war just to artificially increase the bids for this item (Shill Bidding)?

This is clearly not a political situation, but I'm still engaging in sabotage because I am not getting my way. It's no different from any other particular situation where people get the short end of the stick. The question is, why is it considered justified for Unions, and not for anyone else?

[Ravi]

The OP is clearly confused.

In the case of the government shutdown via a hissyfit over the ACA, the people are the union. The union voted for Obama to lead them AFTER the ACA was passed. Therefore, the Republicans are the company in this instance and have fired the union.

[Mainecoons]

The people are a union.

:grin:

Looks like a little over 20 percent of the electorate "voted" for the leader. Well, I guess that is after all a pretty good analogy given that most unions are thug run dictatorships.

Even so, I have to agree that the Republicans were stupid in the extreme to confront Obama over ObamaCare given that all they had to do was just sit back and watch it implode.

Unfortunately, BoneHead never read the works of Sun Tzu and specifically where he counsels not to attack a foe who is committing suicide.

[AmazonTania]

The OP is clearly confused.

In the case of the government shutdown via a hissyfit over the ACA, the people are the union. The union voted for Obama to lead them AFTER the ACA was passed. Therefore, the Republicans are the company in this instance and have fired the union.

How are 'the people' the union when 'the people' do not work for the Government?

Analogy fail...

[fyrenza]

I already gave it to you.

AT seems to think that because both situations involve negotiating then the circumstances are the same. That's like saying the local town alderman from Nowheresville, Alaska and the president of the US are both politicians, therefore their standing on the political landscape is the same. The only thing they have in common is that they are politicians. That's about it. Her argument is disingenuous at best...

Bullshit.

Until you can boil things down into their lowest common denominators,

you are NEVER going to see the patterns, nor understand how any of it came to exist.

[fyrenza]

You will wrap yourself, and any intellect you command, around an axle of :

but this, or that, AND the other,

and melt down, just as the libs are doing, right before our very eyes.

A spade IS a spade, regardless of how it was used,
what sort of condition you find it in,
and/or the muck, covering it.

Once you clean it up (take it down to it's essence),
dust it off (get a good look at it)
and polish it up (FEEL it),

it's STILL just a spade.