PDA

View Full Version : Trump Wins The Unions:



Common
01-23-2017, 09:56 PM
Everyone should agree that creating good paying jobs is a win win for everyone. Not only the middleclass but it gives people working minimum wage jobs a place to move up to and improve their quality of life. We shouldnt fight over everything especially things are obviously good for everyone without bias.

Trump Wins The Unions: Teamsters Praise TPP Withdrawal, Labor Chiefs Describe "Incredible" Meeting With Trump


Shortly after Donald Trump made good on one of his core campaign promises on Monday morning by signing an executive order formally withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade deal, Trump told labor union leaders (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-labor-idUSKBN157290?il=0) that he would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement "at the appropriate time."
The remarks came at the start of a meeting at the White House with leaders of construction, carpenters, plumbers and sheet metal unions, during which Trump pledged to stop trade deals that harmed American workers.

According to the White House, participants included North America's Building Trades Unions President Sean McGarvey, Laborers' International Union of North America President Terry O'Sullivan, SMART sheet metal workers' union President Joseph Sellers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters President Doug McCarron and Mark McManus, president of the United Association that represents plumbers, pipefitters, welders and others. The union meeting also included several local union officials and follows a gathering of 12 chief executives of large companies at the White House to discuss revitalizing the U.S. manufacturing economy.

This is a group that I know well,” Trump said referring to the union bosses, adding “we’re going to put a lot of people back to work” and “stop the ridiculous trade deals.” When Trump said the administration “just officially terminated TPP,” it prompted applause from the labor chiefs (and this time it certainly wasn't by paid members of the studio audience), who later described their meeting with Trump as "incredible."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-23/labor-unions-pivot-praise-trumps-tpp-withdrawal-describe-meeting-president-incredibl

FindersKeepers
01-24-2017, 05:39 AM
I'd feel a little better if the labor unions were a little more subdued.

Peter1469
01-24-2017, 05:49 AM
I'd feel a little better if the labor unions were a little more subdued.


Many are. The teachers union and the AFL-CIO are the overt operatives for the DNC.

The unions went Trump because of the whole national v. globalist dynamic that I have been talking about for almost two years or longer.

Common
01-24-2017, 07:03 AM
Many are. The teachers union and the AFL-CIO are the overt operatives for the DNC.

The unions went Trump because of the whole national v. globalist dynamic that I have been talking about for almost two years or longer.
Thats true the national teachers union is all democrat and so was state teachers unions. There is indication that is changing however at state levels.

Ransom
01-24-2017, 07:25 AM
Dr. Who needs to see this. "Reaching out" to Democrats, these Union bosses.....including AFL-CIO union boss Trumka praising President Trump for slicing and dicing TPP. Rather than reach out to a bunch of screaming maniacal vagina wearing vulgar teenage acting women who are nothing more than butt hurt and disingenuous......Trump reached out to the job market, Dr. Who......the working class. Voters in Michigan and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Middle Class.

I know.....you still believe he needs to reach out to these protester culture simpletons.....but the fact is....he isn't. He's going to first crush funding for abortion abroad....and then Planned Parenthood. While y'all gripe....and moan....and carry on....and swirl around in circles wearing rainbow colors....


He's going to govern, his supporters are going to dig your political graves, Dr. Who. At least put up a defense, so far, all your arguments have done is to pick up a shovel and help us dig. Be an opposition party again, at least make this fun for us. At least make us feel like we accomplished something when we're carving your political tombstone.


Here lies the modern liberal party. Who no one reached out to. Thus.....hung their hats in a depression and hysterical protest.


2008-2017

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 06:32 PM
@Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) needs to see this. "Reaching out" to Democrats, these Union bosses.....including AFL-CIO union boss Trumka praising President Trump for slicing and dicing TPP. Rather than reach out to a bunch of screaming maniacal vagina wearing vulgar teenage acting women who are nothing more than butt hurt and disingenuous......Trump reached out to the job market, Dr. Who......the working class. Voters in Michigan and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Middle Class.

I know.....you still believe he needs to reach out to these protester culture simpletons.....but the fact is....he isn't. He's going to first crush funding for abortion abroad....and then Planned Parenthood. While y'all gripe....and moan....and carry on....and swirl around in circles wearing rainbow colors....


He's going to govern, his supporters are going to dig your political graves, Dr. Who. At least put up a defense, so far, all your arguments have done is to pick up a shovel and help us dig. Be an opposition party again, at least make this fun for us. At least make us feel like we accomplished something when we're carving your political tombstone.


Here lies the modern liberal party. Who no one reached out to. Thus.....hung their hats in a depression and hysterical protest.


2008-2017
Kindly stop using call-outs to get my attention and leave me out of your posts unless you are responding to a post of mine using the quote function. Any further response from me regarding this habit will be less informal.

Bo-4
01-24-2017, 06:38 PM
Might we simply encapsulate your next 356 OP's?

Putin Anointed POTUS deemed Dick-Tater for LIFE .. WooHOOO!!

Saved ya a lotta time huh? ;-)

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151002105839-trevor-noah-donald-trump-president-large-169.jpg

Ransom
01-24-2017, 06:55 PM
Kindly stop using call-outs to get my attention and leave me out of your posts unless you are responding to a post of mine using the quote function. Any further response from me regarding this habit will be less informal.
I'm responding to an argument of yours, Dr. Who. One I think was a colossal misread on your part. And I'm asking above if you'd seen this 'reach out' to Unions and thus millions of blue collar workers. I'm asking if you're seeing him 'reach out' to corporations, business groups, unions, this on just his first two days. Withdrawing from TPP, rolling over into Pipeline Tuesday......and I'm specifically asking you Dr. Who........are you still convinced Trump needs to 'reach out' to a bunch of clowns wearing pink pu44yhats and vaginas for heads? Take your time answering and for God's sake, don't think you're being called out or nothing. I'm curious as to whether you still hold to the mistaken opinion that this anti-Trump show on Saturday needs to be appealed to or have their fears or anxieties looked to. Thanks in advance for your answer.

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 06:55 PM
Funny how unions are discussed in terms of their political prowess rather than their "benefit" to workers anymore.

Green Arrow
01-24-2017, 07:47 PM
I'd feel a little better if the labor unions were a little more subdued.

Spoken like someone that doesn't work anywhere where a union is a necessity.

Green Arrow
01-24-2017, 07:49 PM
Funny how unions are discussed in terms of their political prowess rather than their "benefit" to workers anymore.

That's because unions almost always back Democrats and conservatives eat up bullshit "news" stories about how "evil" they are so they don't have to be honest about why they hate unions. I guarantee you if unions suddenly get in line behind Trump and the conservative agenda they'll suddenly become a good thing again.

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 07:57 PM
I'm responding to an argument of yours, Dr. Who. One I think was a colossal misread on your part. And I'm asking above if you'd seen this 'reach out' to Unions and thus millions of blue collar workers. I'm asking if you're seeing him 'reach out' to corporations, business groups, unions, this on just his first two days. Withdrawing from TPP, rolling over into Pipeline Tuesday......and I'm specifically asking you Dr. Who........are you still convinced Trump needs to 'reach out' to a bunch of clowns wearing pink pu44yhats and vaginas for heads? Take your time answering and for God's sake, don't think you're being called out or nothing. I'm curious as to whether you still hold to the mistaken opinion that this anti-Trump show on Saturday needs to be appealed to or have their fears or anxieties looked to. Thanks in advance for your answer.
I will gladly respond to any post that I believe is actually sincere and not simply an exercise in partisan chumming of the waters dressed up as an argument. Even in your response here you cannot avoid using inflammatory language to describe the protesters, whom you judge without any information as to their personal concerns and characterize as being disingenuous. Having been on the receiving end of that kind of accusation from you personally, I am less than compelled engage you in discussion. Your all too frequent well-poisoning has convinced me that you don't really want any discussion with so-called leftists, you simply want to be derisive.

Before I engage you on this or any other subject perhaps you might want to read what the women's marches were all about and then explain to me without the derision, why they are marching. Here is a link to the march’s official policy platform. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584086c7be6594762f5ec56e/t/58796773414fb52b57e20794/1484351351914/WMW+Guiding+Vision+%26+Definition+of+Principles.pd f

I don't expect you to agree with any of it, but to at least recognize that the concerns expressed therein have been exacerbated by Mr. Trump's campaign and post-election statements and actions.

stjames1_53
01-24-2017, 08:03 PM
so it's Trump's fault that you guys lost......................obviously............... ......is there anyone left you haven't blamed?

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 08:04 PM
That's because unions almost always back Democrats and conservatives eat up bullshit "news" stories about how "evil" they are so they don't have to be honest about why they hate unions. I guarantee you if unions suddenly get in line behind Trump and the conservative agenda they'll suddenly become a good thing again.

We can turn this into another union debate but I don't see the point.

Broad brushing the effectiveness of unions as "bullshit stories" is just that, broad brushing it but at the end of the day you would have a hard time showing that the measurable benefit to workers compare to the political power they wield and basically, against your political creedo I believe, how they influence elections as a super strong lobby.

Green Arrow
01-24-2017, 09:01 PM
We can turn this into another union debate but I don't see the point.

Broad brushing the effectiveness of unions as "bullshit stories" is just that, broad brushing it but at the end of the day you would have a hard time showing that the measurable benefit to workers compare to the political power they wield and basically, against your political creedo I believe, how they influence elections as a super strong lobby.

I've never disagreed that Big Unions have become just as much a political problem as Big Business (in fact, in the past I've written extensively on it). But broad-brushing unions as bad and worthless is just as bad as broad-brushing unions as perfect.

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 09:06 PM
I've never disagreed that Big Unions have become just as much a political problem as Big Business (in fact, in the past I've written extensively on it). But broad-brushing unions as bad and worthless is just as bad as broad-brushing unions as perfect.

Fair enough but note that I'm on record that unions still serve a purpose in some industries like coal mining (which is to a fair degree non-unionized).

But unionizing manufacturing, healthcare... what's the purpose. Only a fraction of these workers "enjoy" union benefits and I can tell you that in the healthcare industry many don't want to bother - unless there is a political football to toss around.

I don't see the worker benefit but I do see the political 800lb gorilla in the political arena.

resister
01-24-2017, 09:06 PM
@Dr. Who (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=612) needs to see this. "Reaching out" to Democrats, these Union bosses.....including AFL-CIO union boss Trumka praising President Trump for slicing and dicing TPP. Rather than reach out to a bunch of screaming maniacal vagina wearing vulgar teenage acting women who are nothing more than butt hurt and disingenuous......Trump reached out to the job market, Dr. Who......the working class. Voters in Michigan and Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Middle Class.

I know.....you still believe he needs to reach out to these protester culture simpletons.....but the fact is....he isn't. He's going to first crush funding for abortion abroad....and then Planned Parenthood. While y'all gripe....and moan....and carry on....and swirl around in circles wearing rainbow colors....


He's going to govern, his supporters are going to dig your political graves, Dr. Who. At least put up a defense, so far, all your arguments have done is to pick up a shovel and help us dig. Be an opposition party again, at least make this fun for us. At least make us feel like we accomplished something when we're carving your political tombstone.


Here lies the modern liberal party. Who no one reached out to. Thus.....hung their hats in a depression and hysterical protest.


2008-2017
Be thou, a, worthy, opponent.

resister
01-24-2017, 09:07 PM
so it's Trump's fault that you guys lost......................obviously............... ......is there anyone left you haven't blamed?Uhh...Hillary?

gamewell45
01-24-2017, 09:33 PM
Fair enough but note that I'm on record that unions still serve a purpose in some industries like coal mining (which is to a fair degree non-unionized).

IMHO, unions will always serve a purpose in any industry where workers feel the need for rights in the workplace. This includes both private and public sector. In the private sector, if CEO's and Presidents of business feel the need to have a Personal Service Agreement (PSA) which is a labor contract to protect their terms and conditions of employment, then why shouldn't the rank and file have the same right if they so choose? In the public sector it's a different animal due to certain laws contained in civil service depending on which state you work in. They have various job protections and laws regarding hiring, pensions, benefits, etc.

But unionizing manufacturing, healthcare... what's the purpose. Only a fraction of these workers "enjoy" union benefits and I can tell you that in the healthcare industry many don't want to bother - unless there is a political football to toss around.

Again, aside from what I mentioned above, any worker who is unionized, aside from enjoying certain benefits that is provided by the union (training, medical and pension, social aspect, school scholarships, etc) also enjoy the knowledge that they have a written contract that they vote on and have a say in what goes into that contract and neither side can broach what is contained language-wise in the agreement. What it all comes down to is you have a say in your career with the company (I'm talking private sector) as opposed to allowing someone else to make it for you.

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 10:12 PM
Fair enough but note that I'm on record that unions still serve a purpose in some industries like coal mining (which is to a fair degree non-unionized).

But unionizing manufacturing, healthcare... what's the purpose. Only a fraction of these workers "enjoy" union benefits and I can tell you that in the healthcare industry many don't want to bother - unless there is a political football to toss around.

I don't see the worker benefit but I do see the political 800lb gorilla in the political arena.

As is often the case, the original reason for unionizing may no longer exist in some industries, given current labor laws. It depends on the industry. In healthcare there are probably few issues that warrant the existence of a union, but there is always the possibility that hospitals would understaff and demand that healthcare workers work unconscionable hours in order to lower the bottom line.

The existence of a union is often not good for workers that excel at their jobs as there is a tendency within unions to discourage workers from outperforming their peers for fear that it will lead management to increase expectations. Essentially unions protect a certain status quo in many industries.

However, they have always been political since their inception and the reason for their existence had much to do with a historical status quo that vested all of the power in the hands of those with money. Today unions play a game with politicians, supporting those who pander to their agendas, regardless of political philosophy.

I can't say that I ever supported the TPP, which to me was analogous to draining even more water from the bathtub of the west to fill the bathtub in the east, fulfilling a rather globalist agenda. That said, trade agreements can be beneficial, so to continue with the analogy, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Trade, where the playing field is generally level, is a good thing.

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 10:12 PM
IMHO, unions will always serve a purpose in any industry where workers feel the need for rights in the workplace. This includes both private and public sector. In the private sector, if CEO's and Presidents of business feel the need to have a Personal Service Agreement (PSA) which is a labor contract to protect their terms and conditions of employment, then why shouldn't the rank and file have the same right if they so choose? In the public sector it's a different animal due to certain laws contained in civil service depending on which state you work in. They have various job protections and laws regarding hiring, pensions, benefits, etc.


Again, aside from what I mentioned above, any worker who is unionized, aside from enjoying certain benefits that is provided by the union (training, medical and pension, social aspect, school scholarships, etc) also enjoy the knowledge that they have a written contract that they vote on and have a say in what goes into that contract and neither side can broach what is contained language-wise in the agreement. What it all comes down to is you have a say in your career with the company (I'm talking private sector) as opposed to allowing someone else to make it for you.

I already agreed with some of that to an extent.

Coal mining should be largely unionized. Coal companies are criminal, they virtually ignore regulations, pay the fines (or just accumulate them) and jeopardize workers. I totally agree in this case, unionization of this industry is sorely needed.

And maybe some others but healthcare? Nurses are among the highest paid workers in the states. They're in demand. Want to be a CNA? Hospitals will pay your education for you to be one. Why does that need unionized?

Or production, the OSHA can't govern this? Why have OSHA then?

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 10:16 PM
As is often the case, the original reason for unionizing may no longer exist in some industries, given current labor laws. It depends on the industry. In healthcare there are probably few issues that warrant the existence of a union, but there is always the possibility that hospitals would understaff and demand that healthcare workers work unconscionable hours in order to lower the bottom line.

The existence of a union is often not good for workers that excel at their jobs as there is a tendency within unions to discourage workers from outperforming their peers for fear that it will lead management to increase expectations. Essentially unions protect a certain status quo in many industries.

However, they have always been political since their inception and the reason for their existence had much to do with a historical status quo that vested all of the power in the hands of those with money. Today unions play a game with politicians, supporting those who pander to their agendas, regardless of political philosophy.

I can't say that I ever supported the TPP, which to me was analogous to draining even more water from the bathtub of the west to fill the bathtub in the east, fulfilling a rather globalist agenda. That said, trade agreements can be beneficial, so to continue with the analogy, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Trade, where the playing field is generally level, is a good thing.

The healthcare industry has been steamrolling toward outcomes and patient satisfaction. Understaffing will result in under-outcoming and lower patient satisfaction - and lower reimbursement, and closure if that facility decides to be a "sweatshop" in that sense.

It's not happening, trust me on that. I'll hire a half dozen nurses now if you present them to me, all things considered.

I think that we agree though that the effectiveness of unions is misaligned and that the political aspect of the big unions is a major part of their existence and I thank you for your honesty.

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 10:36 PM
The healthcare industry has been steamrolling toward outcomes and patient satisfaction. Understaffing will result in under-outcoming and lower patient satisfaction - and lower reimbursement, and closure if that facility decides to be a "sweatshop" in that sense.

It's not happening, trust me on that. I'll hire a half dozen nurses now if you present them to me, all things considered.

I think that we agree though that the effectiveness of unions is misaligned and that the political aspect of the big unions is a major part of their existence and I thank you for your honesty.

I will defer to your greater expertise in the healthcare industry. However, you touched on the wages of nurses. Currently, there is a shortage of nurses. Given the growing obsolescence of many forms of employment with the growth of technology, nursing is liable to become a go-to profession for many who don't want to find their jobs made redundant. What happens to the hourly rates for nurses if they are no longer unionized and rather than a shortage of nurses on the market, there is instead a glut?

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 10:42 PM
I will defer to your greater expertise in the healthcare industry. However, you touched on the wages of nurses. Currently, there is a shortage of nurses. Given the growing obsolescence of many forms of employment with the growth of technology, nursing is liable to become a go-to profession for many who don't want to find their jobs made redundant. What happens to the hourly rates for nurses if they are no longer unionized and rather than a shortage of nurses on the market, there is instead a glut?

Fair question.

I'm in the middle of nowhere, the most remote place in the 48 states and there's a running joke here that Alaskans move here to get away.

We can't get enough nurses here, we staff them with agency nurses (rent-a-nurses). Cost is high, quality is low (they're agency nurses for a reason).

But to answer your question, first - I don't see that happening, the "glut" of nursing because of demand. It's not happening, to simply state it again. The nursing shortage has been around for a while, decades maybe. Second, with the industry moving towards outcomes reimbursement, if there is suddenly a glut of nursing it will be a buyers market and only the competent ones will thrive - because nursing is the core of patient care and no provider wants sucky nurses.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the industry will see a boon in outcomes because there are a lot of crappy nurses out there, again - trust me on that, and if there is suddenly a lot of good ones on the market that means that the crappy ones will be flipping burgers for a living instead of providing lousy patient care.

Peter1469
01-24-2017, 10:53 PM
Nurses here in Northern Virginia don't get paid much. And this is a high cost of living area. Some that I have gotten to know have talked about it. They have very long commutes to get to their work, and many stay with friends when they have their shifts (several days on 12 hr shifts, then several days off) and actually live far out, like in PA.

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 11:04 PM
Nurses here in Northern Virginia don't get paid much. And this is a high cost of living area. Some that I have gotten to know have talked about it. They have very long commutes to get to their work, and many stay with friends when they have their shifts (several days on 12 hr shifts, then several days off) and actually live far out, like in PA.
That would suggest that the nurses unions are fairly local as opposed to state or national unions. I haven't investigated the nature of nurses unions, but it would appear that wages are may be variable, perhaps based on supply.

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 11:07 PM
Fair question.

I'm in the middle of nowhere, the most remote place in the 48 states and there's a running joke here that Alaskans move here to get away.

We can't get enough nurses here, we staff them with agency nurses (rent-a-nurses). Cost is high, quality is low (they're agency nurses for a reason).

But to answer your question, first - I don't see that happening, the "glut" of nursing because of demand. It's not happening, to simply state it again. The nursing shortage has been around for a while, decades maybe. Second, with the industry moving towards outcomes reimbursement, if there is suddenly a glut of nursing it will be a buyers market and only the competent ones will thrive - because nursing is the core of patient care and no provider wants sucky nurses.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that the industry will see a boon in outcomes because there are a lot of crappy nurses out there, again - trust me on that, and if there is suddenly a lot of good ones on the market that means that the crappy ones will be flipping burgers for a living instead of providing lousy patient care.
Your experience seems to conflict with Pete's comment on nurses wages in VA. Is this supply and demand at work?

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 11:12 PM
Your experience seems to conflict with Pete's comment on nurses wages in VA. Is this supply and demand at work?

I don't know about VA, never worked in that area, maybe it's an anomaly. VA is a hub of DC, that might be part of it. I really don't know.

But I do know that 12 hour shifts are typical, for staffing efficiency.

Ask Peter to send me some of those nurses resumes. We have a $4k bonus for anyone who recruits a nurse, I'll split it with him.

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 11:26 PM
I don't know about VA, never worked in that area, maybe it's an anomaly. VA is a hub of DC, that might be part of it. I really don't know.

But I do know that 12 hour shifts are typical, for staffing efficiency.

Ask Peter to send me some of those nurses resumes. We have a $4k bonus for anyone who recruits a nurse, I'll split it with him.
Based on this (http://nursesalaryguide.net/nurse-salary-by-state/), there is certainly some variability in salaries, but salaries are also dependent on the type of nurse i.e. LPN vs RN vs NP.

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 11:29 PM
Based on this (http://nursesalaryguide.net/nurse-salary-by-state/), there is certainly some variability in salaries, but salaries are also dependent on the type of nurse i.e. LPN vs RN vs NP.

Well... yeah

NP's are providers, or should be. They're gold in primary care in rural America, I'm trying to staff more here with some success.

There's a whole range of nursing from medical assistants which are basically cashiers with a Sally Struthers degree to those LPN's and RN's that you pointed out.

Staffing coverage involves all of these, it's complicated but it's not really.

Peter1469
01-24-2017, 11:43 PM
That would suggest that the nurses unions are fairly local as opposed to state or national unions. I haven't investigated the nature of nurses unions, but it would appear that wages are may be variable, perhaps based on supply.

I didn't ask about a union. I should have.

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 11:46 PM
Well... yeah

NP's are providers, or should be. They're gold in primary care in rural America, I'm trying to staff more here with some success.

There's a whole range of nursing from medical assistants which are basically cashiers with a Sally Struthers degree to those LPN's and RN's that you pointed out.

Staffing coverage involves all of these, it's complicated but it's not really.
I doubt that patients necessarily know whether they are dealing with LPNs or RNs much of the time, although I imagine the NPs are not doing much of the regular nursing work in the wards. I wonder whether Pete was talking to LPNs or RNs?

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 11:47 PM
I didn't ask about a union. I should have.
I wonder whether the nurses you spoke with were LPNs or RNs? LPNs make considerably less than RNs.

Captain Obvious
01-24-2017, 11:53 PM
I doubt that patients necessarily know whether they are dealing with LPNs or RNs much of the time, although I imagine the NPs are not doing much of the regular nursing work in the wards. I wonder whether Pete was talking to LPNs or RNs?

NP's don't work nursing, they're providers basically, they see patients.

RN's are real nurses, LPN's are a step below them.

Dr. Who
01-24-2017, 11:59 PM
NP's don't work nursing, they're providers basically, they see patients.

RN's are real nurses, LPN's are a step below them.
That's what I thought, however in terms of LPNs and RNs, I doubt that most patients really know that there is a distinction. I presume that the RNs don't change bedpans or bathe patients, but LPNs do?

FindersKeepers
01-25-2017, 06:13 AM
Spoken like someone that doesn't work anywhere where a union is a necessity.

I think we could do a whole 'nother thread on that one, GA.

I've been around unions all my life. I cringed in the front seat of a pickup truck as a little girl with my sister as vicious UMWA strikers beat on the windows and grabbed a handful of my little sister's hair, pulling it out by the roots.

I remember a stone being thrown through our front picture window and my dad having to board it over with plywood.

As a meritshop construction owner in Reno, NV, I was warned to keep my head down because non-union projects had been mysteriously burning to the ground.

I've had direct contact with tenured public school teachers who would not stop harassing my daughter for her non-religious beliefs, even after being warned, and I ended up homeschooling her last two years.

There was a time when unions were beneficial. That time is over. Now, we have regulatory safety entities, OSHA, and a host of other agencies that regulate what is in a worker's best interest.

Union membership is at an all-time low for a reason. People don't like being associated with bullies and corruption.

Peter1469
01-25-2017, 08:35 AM
I wonder whether the nurses you spoke with were LPNs or RNs? LPNs make considerably less than RNs.

Good point. I don't know.

Ransom
01-25-2017, 10:00 AM
I will gladly respond to any post that I believe is actually sincere and not simply an exercise in partisan chumming of the waters dressed up as an argument. Even in your response here you cannot avoid using inflammatory language to describe the protesters, whom you judge without any information as to their personal concerns and characterize as being disingenuous. Having been on the receiving end of that kind of accusation from you personally, I am less than compelled engage you in discussion. Your all too frequent well-poisoning has convinced me that you don't really want any discussion with so-called leftists, you simply want to be derisive.

And I'll gladly respond to any post as well...or argument that relates to the topic at hand...without caring for your personal "has convinced me" concerning my debate style on the forum, Dr. Who. And I'll continue to respond to this colossal error in judgement on your part without mentioning you as you've asked, doesn't mean I won't respond nor reference your opinion.....because I think it an important lesson to be learned. Your opinion Trump needs to "reach out" to a bunch of parading obscenity laced women wearing vaginas for hats in my view......isn't accurate...and I'll continue to pound on that and keep showing you examples.


Before I engage you on this or any other subject perhaps you might want to read what the women's marches were all about and then explain to me without the derision, why they are marching. Here is a link to the march’s official policy platform. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584086c7be6594762f5ec56e/t/58796773414fb52b57e20794/1484351351914/WMW+Guiding+Vision+%26+Definition+of+Principles.pd f

I don't expect you to agree with any of it, but to at least recognize that the concerns expressed therein have been exacerbated by Mr. Trump's campaign and post-election statements and actions.

I witnessed some of the parading, Dr. Who. First hand. And not only don't I recognize their concerns, I think they're fake and agenda driven. No, I don't agree. And frankly......Dr. Who......don't expect you to agree with me.....I not only think these marchers are disingenuous and for the most part....showed it.....I strongly urge the President and our political Party....to take full advantage of it. To shine a light on this behavior, not to address their concerns....but to prove to mainstream America how extreme Left they nearly all are.

Dr. Who.....I personally believe your Party....I should say the Democrat Party, I don't know yours.....is going to have to cut ties with these factions. The Democrat Party wants marches like this and this nonsensical behavior I personally witnessed to be their face and mission statement.....bring that on. If they want to use Madonna as a spokesperson.....please...make our day. I think we can beat that, Dr. Who. In fact....I think my Party can take that....and beat the living shiit out of our opposition with it. Now...you may think that well poisoning or rude or arrogant or dictator like.....

....we don't really care. We're governing....and we're going to do it at the Left's expense, we believe they've nearly ruined this country. It's why we believe Donald Trump is President.

Green Arrow
01-25-2017, 10:17 AM
Fair enough but note that I'm on record that unions still serve a purpose in some industries like coal mining (which is to a fair degree non-unionized).

But unionizing manufacturing, healthcare... what's the purpose. Only a fraction of these workers "enjoy" union benefits and I can tell you that in the healthcare industry many don't want to bother - unless there is a political football to toss around.

I don't see the worker benefit but I do see the political 800lb gorilla in the political arena.

You don't see the worker benefit of a union when that union negotiates for better pay and benefits?

Peter1469
01-25-2017, 03:25 PM
You don't see the worker benefit of a union when that union negotiates for better pay and benefits?

Not if the promises turn out to bankrupt the company. Our airline and car companies learned that often with repeated bankruptcies.

Green Arrow
01-25-2017, 05:44 PM
Not if the promises turn out to bankrupt the company. Our airline and car companies learned that often with repeated bankruptcies.

I don't see how that can be blamed entirely on the unions when those same companies also engaged in bad business practices (like excessive CEO bonuses and pissing off customers) that declined their profits in the first place.

Peter1469
01-25-2017, 09:11 PM
I don't see how that can be blamed entirely on the unions when those same companies also engaged in bad business practices (like excessive CEO bonuses and pissing off customers) that declined their profits in the first place.

It had a lot to do with the specific examples that I noted. Also many of these bankruptcies were in the 80s and 90s before CEO pay went crazy.

Green Arrow
01-25-2017, 09:22 PM
It had a lot to do with the specific examples that I noted. Also many of these bankruptcies were in the 80s and 90s before CEO pay went crazy.

Sorry, I thought you were talking about current bankruptcies. Although I'm not sure why I thought that considering the union heyday was in the 80s and 90s...self facepalm.

gamewell45
01-25-2017, 11:36 PM
As is often the case, the original reason for unionizing may no longer exist in some industries, given current labor laws. It depends on the industry. In healthcare there are probably few issues that warrant the existence of a union, but there is always the possibility that hospitals would understaff and demand that healthcare workers work unconscionable hours in order to lower the bottom line.

The current labor laws in most states are on level with many third-world countries; indeed the US ranks only above South Africa when it compared to other industrialized nations. Many people are mistaken that the only thing that is important is making more money when it comes to unionization; they are sadly misinformed since in most cases, people grow accustomed to the money, yet other issues that may be in the workplace remain unresolved, thus leaving many workers being unhappy overall. Both blue collar and white collar unions provide the workers with a mechanism to address grievances that may occur in the workplace as opposed to non-union shops where the bosses are the only and final word in resolving them most often to the benefit of the company as opposed to the worker. As a quick example, in almost any union shop, an employee's business relationship with the employer may be terminated for just cause, however the company has the burden of proof, usually through a neutral third-party who hears both sides and renders a decision which both sides agree to abide by; this is called the arbitration process, which is a time-honored method of peacefully resolving discipline issues.


The existence of a union is often not good for workers that excel at their jobs as there is a tendency within unions to discourage workers from outperforming their peers for fear that it will lead management to increase expectations. Essentially unions protect a certain status quo in many industries.

Not necessarily true; many labor contracts allow for merit increases and promotions based on good work ethic, job performance and productivity, all of which are decided by management. While it may be true that a few labor unions may subscribe to what you describe, overall most unions discourage that line of thinking since if the company does well, the workers will benefit by keeping the company in business through increased productivity, profits and thus, job security.


However, they have always been political since their inception and the reason for their existence had much to do with a historical status quo that vested all of the power in the hands of those with money. Today unions play a game with politicians, supporting those who pander to their agendas, regardless of political philosophy.

Everything in business is political when it comes down to it; Unions tend to support candidates who have their best interests in hand, just as, for example, the US Chamber of Commerce has the best interests of business in hand and lobby with politicians to achieve their goals. Contrary to popular belief politicians likewise pander to Unions/Business as evidenced in this past election.


I can't say that I ever supported the TPP, which to me was analogous to draining even more water from the bathtub of the west to fill the bathtub in the east, fulfilling a rather globalist agenda. That said, trade agreements can be beneficial, so to continue with the analogy, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Trade, where the playing field is generally level, is a good thing.
TPP, NAFTA & GATT were opposed by most major unions and labor organizations including the AFL-CIO at the time they were enacted, however big business won those battles, which unfortunately had bad repercussions for both unions and non-union workers in the US almost immediately. Trade agreements which benefit all Americans, both workers and business are always in our country's best interests.

crowonapost
01-25-2017, 11:39 PM
Unions. Are about those that 'win' like' Trump.

Unions WIN! like Trump.

Peter1469
01-25-2017, 11:51 PM
Sorry, I thought you were talking about current bankruptcies. Although I'm not sure why I thought that considering the union heyday was in the 80s and 90s...self facepalm.

I think it was the Delta pilots that got royally screwed. 30 cents on the dollar for retired pilots who had deals too good to be true.

Tahuyaman
01-25-2017, 11:53 PM
Many are. The teachers union and the AFL-CIO are the overt operatives for the DNC.

The unions went Trump because of the whole national v. globalist dynamic that I have been talking about for almost two years or longer.


Im not in this nationalist crowd. I'm more of an Americanist.

I'm skeptical of Trump in this area. You don't fix anything by using one sector of the economy to prop up the other. Trump is planning another big government solution to a problem.

Peter1469
01-25-2017, 11:55 PM
What do you see as the difference between nationalism and Americanism?
Im not in this nationalist crowd. I'm more of an Americanist.

I'm skeptical of Trump in this area. You don't fix anything by using one sector of the economy to prop up the other. Trump is planning another big government solution to a problem.

Dr. Who
01-26-2017, 12:04 AM
The current labor laws in most states are on level with many third-world countries; indeed the US ranks only above South Africa when it compared to other industrialized nations. Many people are mistaken that the only thing that is important is making more money when it comes to unionization; they are sadly misinformed since in most cases, people grow accustomed to the money, yet other issues that may be in the workplace remain unresolved, thus leaving many workers being unhappy overall. Both blue collar and white collar unions provide the workers with a mechanism to address grievances that may occur in the workplace as opposed to non-union shops where the bosses are the only and final word in resolving them most often to the benefit of the company as opposed to the worker. As a quick example, in almost any union shop, an employee's business relationship with the employer may be terminated for just cause, however the company has the burden of proof, usually through a neutral third-party who hears both sides and renders a decision which both sides agree to abide by; this is called the arbitration process, which is a time-honored method of peacefully resolving discipline issues.



Not necessarily true; many labor contracts allow for merit increases and promotions based on good work ethic, job performance and productivity, all of which are decided by management. While it may be true that a few labor unions may subscribe to what you describe, overall most unions discourage that line of thinking since if the company does well, the workers will benefit by keeping the company in business through increased productivity, profits and thus, job security.



Everything in business is political when it comes down to it; Unions tend to support candidates who have their best interests in hand, just as, for example, the US Chamber of Commerce has the best interests of business in hand and lobby with politicians to achieve their goals. Contrary to popular belief politicians likewise pander to Unions/Business as evidenced in this past election.


TPP, NAFTA & GATT were opposed by most major unions and labor organizations including the AFL-CIO at the time they were enacted, however big business won those battles, which unfortunately had bad repercussions for both unions and non-union workers in the US almost immediately. Trade agreements which benefit all Americans, both workers and business are always in our country's best interests.

I realize that unions don't all operate from the same playbook, but many of the largest and most political unions have.

No trade agreement will or should benefit one party over another. On average they should benefit both parties equally, but that doesn't mean that some don't get the dirty end of the stick. The alternative is protectionism, which closes out markets to new export business because of punitive taxation on the parts of those intended markets. That effectively favors big business over small business.

Tahuyaman
01-26-2017, 12:12 AM
What do you see as the difference between nationalism and Americanism?
In my view, nationalists favor government having more power. They just favor our government having the power.

I consider an americanist one who wants the American people as a whole having more power. Someone who looks for solutions by not involving government.