How can you be Pro Choicefor Abortions but Anti Choicefor Unions?

[wazi99]

How can you be Pro Choice for Abortions but Anti Choice for Unions?

So its ok for a Woman to have the chose if she wants to kill her baby or not but if someone wants the right to chose to join a union that is not ok? Can you say hypocritical?

[patrickt]

The pro-choice people are anti-choice for unions, for schools, for almost everything except killing children. For that, they're pro-choice for now. They will be anti-choice when they can get mandatory abortions.

[Captain Obvious]

Choosing to not participate in a corrupt, meaningless organization and choosing to slaughter an innocent, unborn child are two completely different choices.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Just realized CO said pretty much what I wanted to say.

[elvisroy0000]

unions are anti Choice, Thugs Mobsters and Socialists wake up

[elvisroy0000]

nobody should be pro choice for Murdering unborn Babies or Union Mobsters

[Cigar]

"Work at will" labor policy means you can be fired for any reason with NO explanation. And it means you have NO recourse of any kind to appeal or protest such a dismissal. That is the real "dirty" little secret with the attack on labor and workers. It is more than about unions it is about the ability of American business to have it will in every possible way. It gives business supreme economic authority. And it makes any attempt to collectively bargain impossible.

The conservative and business movement is more brutal than anyone knows. Such policies mean that you can work your entire life and have no pension and even if you have one you can be let go the very last day before you qualify. Pension theft is a national epidemic because older workers are the targets of these economic serial killers.

Twinkie-maker Hostess continues to screw over its workers. The company is in the process of complete liquidation and 18,000 unionized workers are set to lose their jobs. More troubling – they could lose their pensions.

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, Hostess’ CEO, Gregory Rayburn, essentially admitted that his company stole employee pension money and put it toward CEO and senior executive pay (aka “operations”). While this isn't technically illegal, it's another sleazy theft by Hostess executives - who've paid themselves handsomely while running their company into the ground. Just last month, a judge agreed to let Hostess executives suck another $1.8 million out of the bankrupt company to pay bonuses to CEOs.

If there's no way to recover the money for the Hostess pension plans for workers, then we the taxpayers - through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. - will have to foot the bill to make sure workers get the retirement money they paid in.

Hostess shows us clearly what Bain-style predatory capitalism is all about: big bucks for the very few rich executives, layoffs and poverty for the workers and their communities.

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/twinkie-ceo-admits-company-took-employees-pensions-and-put-it?paging=off

[Cigar]

nobody should be pro choice for Murdering unborn Babies or Union Mobsters

Try to remember that when there's talk about Freedom from Religion

[Chris]

Twinkie-maker Hostess continues to screw over its workers. The company is in the process of complete liquidation and 18,000 unionized workers are set to lose their jobs.

So unions are no guarantee.

[Chris]

Try to remember that when there's talk about Freedom from Religion

What do unions and abortions have to do with religion?

[Cigar]

So, workers have the choice on paying union dues...but they must take the benefits the union negotiates. Getting something for nothing, essentially.

Won't this promote divisiveness among workers?

How can this be seen as anything other than an attempt to undermine unions

[Cigar]

http://editorialcartoonists.com/cartoons/SorenJ/2012/SorenJ20121212_low.jpg
http://www.creators.com/editorial_cartoons/15/25023_thumb.gif
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/10/2012/12/11/123758_600.jpg
http://www.whatnowtoons.com/images/right-to-work-law-what-now-459.jpg

[patrickt]

So, workers have the choice on paying union dues...but they must take the benefits the union negotiates. Getting something for nothing, essentially.

Won't this promote divisiveness among workers?

How can this be seen as anything other than an attempt to undermine unions

Unions promote divisiveness. "You are for us or against us. Never rat out a brother union member."

Unions never negotiate. Extortion and bribery are not negotiating.

I got no benefits from the union. My benefits came from the employer. Once the union started playing their games our pay was worse, our health benefits were worse, and union rules were a pain. I was allowed to ignore all union rules since I refused to join and no one wanted to defend the union rules. The "benefits" the union touted were protection provided by union lawyers, protection provided by other union members, life insurance, and parties. Since I wasn't corrupt, lazy, incompetent, or a coward I didn't need the union lawyers. I was happy going on calls without the union thugs since watching my front and my back would have been awkward. As for the parties and such, screw em.

How can giving people a choice on joining a union be seen as anything other than undermining unions? For you, it can't. People having a choice, in anything, is not the way of the socialists.

[Cigar]

Unions promote divisiveness. "You are for us or against us. Never rat out a brother union member."

Unions never negotiate. Extortion and bribery are not negotiating.

I got no benefits from the union. My benefits came from the employer. Once the union started playing their games our pay was worse, our health benefits were worse, and union rules were a pain. I was allowed to ignore all union rules since I refused to join and no one wanted to defend the union rules. The "benefits" the union touted were protection provided by union lawyers, protection provided by other union members, life insurance, and parties. Since I wasn't corrupt, lazy, incompetent, or a coward I didn't need the union lawyers. I was happy going on calls without the union thugs since watching my front and my back would have been awkward. As for the parties and such, screw em.

How can giving people a choice on joining a union be seen as anything other than undermining unions? For you, it can't. People having a choice, in anything, is not the way of the socialists.

Kinda reminds you of a Political Party ... with Pledges and all ... :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[patrickt]

Kinda reminds you of a Political Party ... with Pledges and all ... :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Kinda reminds me of a pointless Cigar post. It reminds me of the Communist Party of America. Let the purges begin.

[Peter1469]

"Work at will" labor policy means you can be fired for any reason with NO explanation. And it means you have NO recourse of any kind to appeal or protest such a dismissal. That is the real "dirty" little secret with the attack on labor and workers. It is more than about unions it is about the ability of American business to have it will in every possible way. It gives business supreme economic authority. And it makes any attempt to collectively bargain impossible.

The conservative and business movement is more brutal than anyone knows. Such policies mean that you can work your entire life and have no pension and even if you have one you can be let go the very last day before you qualify. Pension theft is a national epidemic because older workers are the targets of these economic serial killers.

Twinkie-maker Hostess continues to screw over its workers. The company is in the process of complete liquidation and 18,000 unionized workers are set to lose their jobs. More troubling – they could lose their pensions.

According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, Hostess’ CEO, Gregory Rayburn, essentially admitted that his company stole employee pension money and put it toward CEO and senior executive pay (aka “operations”). While this isn't technically illegal, it's another sleazy theft by Hostess executives - who've paid themselves handsomely while running their company into the ground. Just last month, a judge agreed to let Hostess executives suck another $1.8 million out of the bankrupt company to pay bonuses to CEOs.

If there's no way to recover the money for the Hostess pension plans for workers, then we the taxpayers - through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. - will have to foot the bill to make sure workers get the retirement money they paid in.

Hostess shows us clearly what Bain-style predatory capitalism is all about: big bucks for the very few rich executives, layoffs and poverty for the workers and their communities.

http://www.alternet.org/corporate-accountability-and-workplace/twinkie-ceo-admits-company-took-employees-pensions-and-put-it?paging=off











Not entirely true. At will means you can fire someone for any reason that isn't on the no-no list, like age, gender, religion, and one or two other things. It also means that an employee can quit without violating an employment contract.

[wazi99]

So, workers have the choice on paying union dues...but they must take the benefits the union negotiates. Getting something for nothing, essentially.

Won't this promote divisiveness among workers?

How can this be seen as anything other than an attempt to undermine unions

You don't have to take their contract and can work out you own like 90% of Americans do. You do have the option in a right to work state. In a at will state you have no option.