Why does the left not comment on the amount of money union leaders make?
Just an observation...
Just an observation...
A simple question
- Thread starter actinanass
- Start date
You do know that the postal service is mostly privately owned right?
Besides, I do not care who makes what. I care about why YOU care about who makes what....
The Post Office is subsidized by the government, thus tax dollars are involved. So your right wing tendencies should lead you to make yourself give back tax payer money since you think government is the problem.
Good question! But 'the left" takes into consideration a large number of people, you know. Who do you think is qualified to speak for such a large group of people ???
BTW, are you a member of the APWU (American Postal Workers Union) or another union representing postal employees ??? I was just reading an article where the APWU was stating that it stands in solidarity with the public employees in Wisconsin.
QueEx
Last time I checked, the postal service has 4 different unions.
The APWU is the more left leaning one.
The crazy thing is, the unions support you even if you aren't a member. However, in the postal service, the union and management tend to work together more than other companies.
The APWU is the more left leaning one.
The crazy thing is, the unions support you even if you aren't a member. However, in the postal service, the union and management tend to work together more than other companies.
Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Wednesday defended his Republican colleague, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and suggested that President Obama had been hypocritical in boasting about freezing pay for federal employees while at the same time expressing support for the collective bargaining rights of public workers in Wisconsin.
"The fact of the matter is the president told us at the White House that he had unilaterally frozen spending for federal employees," Barbour told reporters in Washington after speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Federal employees don't have collective bargaining rights. The president can unilaterally freeze their pay, so the idea you guys have given the country is just like there's some constitutional right to collective bargaining."
Scott Conroy RealClearPolitics
Barbour said that about half of U.S. states, including Mississippi, either offered no collective bargaining rights for public unions or limited them.
The likely 2012 presidential candidate added that Walker and Wisconsin state Republicans were merely trying to pass a law that already exists in many other states.
"So do I think he's overreached? No, I think he's being realistic," Barbour said. "Having a one-year agreement about wages and benefits doesn't really help with the problem. You're not going to get rid of a $3.6 billion budget problem in a state the size of Wisconsin by having one year of savings."
"The fact of the matter is the president told us at the White House that he had unilaterally frozen spending for federal employees," Barbour told reporters in Washington after speaking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Federal employees don't have collective bargaining rights. The president can unilaterally freeze their pay, so the idea you guys have given the country is just like there's some constitutional right to collective bargaining."
Scott Conroy RealClearPolitics
Barbour said that about half of U.S. states, including Mississippi, either offered no collective bargaining rights for public unions or limited them.
The likely 2012 presidential candidate added that Walker and Wisconsin state Republicans were merely trying to pass a law that already exists in many other states.
"So do I think he's overreached? No, I think he's being realistic," Barbour said. "Having a one-year agreement about wages and benefits doesn't really help with the problem. You're not going to get rid of a $3.6 billion budget problem in a state the size of Wisconsin by having one year of savings."
I get paid to perform a service. Tax payers want me to deliver MAIL. I do that. I get taxed just like you get taxed. Therefore, the tax payers money is going right back to the system.
You the one who have more issues about who makes what. It's like you want to police everyone's income.
How about this? You make more money, and worry about your situation. I bet if more people do that, the better off this country would be.
So you understand how the stimulus works. Excellent explanation and its wonderful you agree that it is a good idea.
Again, you have it twisted. I don't care how much working people such as yourself make. In fact I want working people to make as much as they can. It's your buddies, Limbaugh, Scott Walker and the right that have the workers under siege. Calling people with advanced collage dress that make $55,000/yr elites. If they are elites, what does that make Sahara Palin? But of course the amount of money workers make is just a smokescreen. The right is trying to bust the unions, because they generally support Democrats. Eliminate the unions and you eliminate a major fund raising sources for Democrats. That's the ultimate plan.
no I'm not.
My point is, the union still represents me even if I don't pay dues. It's crazy..
wow, I'm trippin cause you actually had a choice. I did assembly line work for 2 years & they took 2 hours out of my check every week.
I was mad as hell that first year cause I was only gettin 16 hrs/week.
Wait! Isn't it the same as the left trying to limit talk radio?
Isn't it kinda hypocritical that your side can bitch about who makes what, but never look at the multi-millionaires/billionaires that support your cause?
Like I said before, I really don't care who makes what. In fact, I want as many millionaires as possible *preferably a few more black millionaires/billionaires*. It makes me sick when people always bring up a person's income to prove some kind of twisted point. Make your money, and open up alleys so I can make it up there with ya. No handouts, more opportunities....
BTW, your stimulus comparison is asinine.
I could go into detail, but it would be like me trying to get a muslim to eat some bacon.
To answer the Op's question, as a former member of a labor union, I didn't have a problem with how much money leaders of my local or the AFL-CIO made.
I thought of it this way, there are primarily two ways to build a good foundation for my future children to succeed. One is get an education and apply it properly (preferably a bachelor's degree), the second is to have a middle class job, with a decent wage. I worked in the union for about 5 years then I decided to go back to school.
Before I joined the union, I worked twice as hard for a quarter of the money I made. I saw people less qualified than I was get promotions that I went out for. What I was earning before I joined the union was far from a livable wage. At the very least, the union provided me with a livable wage and allowed me to get my affairs in order so that I would be able to go to back to school in the first place.
There was actually a really good article on why and how the power of the unions decreased politically.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline
Corporations have done an excellent job of ensuring that the middle class, whats left of it, fights amongst themselves for the pittance they are paid when benefits and costs of living adjustments are taken into effect.
Honestly I think one of the better examples of a strong union today is the MLPA. I'm too young to have seen first hand the strength of the steelworkers or the autoworkers.
I thought of it this way, there are primarily two ways to build a good foundation for my future children to succeed. One is get an education and apply it properly (preferably a bachelor's degree), the second is to have a middle class job, with a decent wage. I worked in the union for about 5 years then I decided to go back to school.
Before I joined the union, I worked twice as hard for a quarter of the money I made. I saw people less qualified than I was get promotions that I went out for. What I was earning before I joined the union was far from a livable wage. At the very least, the union provided me with a livable wage and allowed me to get my affairs in order so that I would be able to go to back to school in the first place.
There was actually a really good article on why and how the power of the unions decreased politically.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-labor-union-decline
Corporations have done an excellent job of ensuring that the middle class, whats left of it, fights amongst themselves for the pittance they are paid when benefits and costs of living adjustments are taken into effect.
Honestly I think one of the better examples of a strong union today is the MLPA. I'm too young to have seen first hand the strength of the steelworkers or the autoworkers.
Surely that's something for the union members to comment on if they are unhappy with it...? 
I have no problems with unions personally. My only problem I have is the people who act like unions isn't like the corporations we suppose to hate. It's big business to make us feel that we are unfairly treated. Democrats need victims to profit on. That's how the unions/democrats survive.
To be honest, it can be argued that Union's killed reparations back in the day. If my historical brain is correct, Unions used to be a "whites only" club in the south. What big business used to do in the South is hire ex-slave workers, give them a house, and pay them less due to them having a house. They would usually hire the ex-slave faster than the white worker. Thus, introducing worker's rights. Including the idea of a minimal wage. *I know Que would correct my minor flaws lol*
Surely that's something for the union members to comment on if they are unhappy with it...?
A lot of union members are more conservative than me. It's mostly about fear than anything else...
Yeah, crazy. You're not a member of either of the unions; the unions represent you, for free; and you're against unions.
Crazy.
Like I said, I know if I were you I wouldn't be a member either; but why would you be against what looks like a win, win? You know, my granny used to say: you have to be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
QueEx
The only thing that I'm openly against unions for is the fact that I can work hard as fuck, but will still get paid the same as someone who slacks. That's the only issue.
Most unions are good, however, I find it funny that people cannot say that the Union bosses cannot be as corrupt, or even more than their corporate counterparts. In other words, I see unions just like I see big business. Yet, many of my peers think the Unions are some kind of Godsend that can do NO wrong. Which is utter bullshit!
Yeah, but the slacker gets the same result, with out without a union, doesn't he/she? I don't know but from what I've seen, even in unionized shops, failure to perform usually falls under the rubric of "insubordination", "conduct unbecoming" or a similar category -- which can get one terminated or dismissed, "for cause" - - and union workers typically aren't immune against terminations, for cause, are they ?
Hell, don't we all know that there is no segment of our population that is immune from corruption ??? Isn't that really just common knowledge ???
QueEx
I don't understand, post where anyone is trying to limit talk radio?
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_i6bfMJFsWQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So why are republicans trying to limit the amount of money middle class people make?
Explain to me why it is asinine?
You can never go in to detail because what you post you cannot explain.
I will be waiting to detailed explanations, as usual!
This is, as usual a perpetuation of flawed, half truths and lies, which has degenerated in to generic talking points over the years. The very reason unions came in to being is because you can work your ass off and not get compensated for it. To confirm this, how many are working longer, harder hours these days and not receiving proper compensation for it, while non union workshops are at all time highs. However, the earnings of the wealthy have risen during this economic downturn. Using the logic of the right, the most efficient workers should be prospering. They are not. Seems to me rather than the economy growing overall to benefit all sectors of wage earners, the profits have shift unequally to the top earners. The right has truly mastered George Orwell's "Newspeak".
Any organize has it's "Bad Apples". Recently, Dr. King's organization, SCLC has be riddled with allegations of corruption. However, cooperate corruption has bankrupted many of the economies of the western world and exploited millions. Comparing Jimmy Hoffa to the the former Charmain of Union Carbide, Warren M. Anderson who in 1984, due to financial expediency caused the death of 25,000 people and is still wanted by the Indian government for prosecution is an unequal comparison.
Last edited:
1. Fairness doctrine. Hell, look at how people tried to blame talk radio for Arizona. Do I need to bring up that post again?
2. No one's trying to limit anyone's income. In fact, conservatives would want MORE millionaires spending money. That's how an economy grows. Something the left simply does not understand...
3. It's asinine because the so-called stimulus you claim I'm receiving is flawed. Not on my level, but in the upper management level, in which, most of the postal service waste comes from. Point being, stimulus only works when it goes directly into something with less middle men as possible. In the post office case, there's more middle men grabbing for funding because of the government subsidies.
4. Right now, I could sit up and work the fastest, smartest, out of everyone in my office, and receive the same pay grade the slackers make. That is the downside of unions.
5. The last thing we all need to do is to get rid of the corporate mindset. In capitalism, everything is an endless cycle of ups and downs. In essence, it's life. As bad as it is right now, I, nor many of us, should want anything else. Remember, you can control a person who is greedy.
You would be surprise how many slackers get away with murder because they know how to play the system. For the post office, you basically have to get caught stealing mail before you are actually removed. It is very difficult to get fired. I'm not going to say that THAT is the main problem though.
It should be common knowledge, yet, some people act as if the union is a Godsend. A union can do NO wrong because it represents the people....
Yeah, there are always slackers and I'm not aware of any system that is flawless. But tell me, would it be cause for dismissal if caught and proven to be slacking ???
`
It has to be a long occurrence of such actions. Pretty much a year's worth. Plus, it has to be something else to go with that like cussing the boss out. However, if you have been a career employee for over 6 years, its nearly impossible to get fired unless you have been stealing.
I'm confused with your tie in to the fairness doctrine and the Arizona shootings. I'm not sure you know exactly what the Fairness doctrine is. Please explain what you think it is, may be it will be clear to me.
Well then why does Faux Snooze label teachers that make $55,000/yr as elites?
This doesn't make sense
What guarantee do you have that if there were no union you would make more than others? Have you read that productivity among American workers is at an all time high, yet incomes have actually fallen? Working harder in the supply side economy does not translate in to rewarding hard work. It just means that if you complain, they ship your job to $5 a day markets.
Yes, but not an endless cycle of boom and bust. Taxes should be at a level that encourage the wealthy to reinvest back in to the economy, rather than buy candidates and speculate wildly in the markets.
1. Que will come in with a factcheck.org post...
2. I don't remember them saying that... I know you have a youtube link ready....sooooo.... Hit me with it..
3. Let me make it simple for you. I'll use a drug reference.
If I were to start selling drugs, my main goal would to get a connect with less interference as possible. When more people are involved, there's more witnesses, there's more chances to get in trouble, there's more mouths to feed sort of speak.
As for Government, the simplest the process is, the more effective it will be.
4. Nothing is guaranteed. It's a case by case basis. However, in a union job, it's almost guaranteed that the longer you've been there, the more power you will possess.
Keyword is ALMOST.
5. Boom and bust is all apart of life. People win, people loses. The issue is HOW we, and our government responds to each situation. For example, Hoover raising taxes in 1932 was a bad political move for a bad economy.
I like debating you.
1. Que will come in with a factcheck.org post...
2. I don't remember them saying that... I know you have a youtube link ready....sooooo.... Hit me with it..
3. Let me make it simple for you. I'll use a drug reference.
If I were to start selling drugs, my main goal would to get a connect with less interference as possible. When more people are involved, there's more witnesses, there's more chances to get in trouble, there's more mouths to feed sort of speak.
As for Government, the simplest the process is, the more effective it will be.
4. Nothing is guaranteed. It's a case by case basis. However, in a union job, it's almost guaranteed that the longer you've been there, the more power you will possess.
Keyword is ALMOST.
5. Boom and bust is all apart of life. People win, people loses. The issue is HOW we, and our government responds to each situation. For example, Hoover raising taxes in 1932 was a bad political move for a bad economy.
I like debating you.
So you don't know what the Fairness Doctrine is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1880786,00.html
and to be fair, Obama does not want to enact the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/18/white-house-obama-opposes-fairness-doctrine-revival/
Like I said, you don't know what the Fairness doctrine is. You have yet to explain what the Fairness Doctrine has to do with the coverage of the Arizona shootings.
It's basically a bill that controls free speech by forcing radio stations to put BOTH sides on the air.
Every time a situation happens *OKC bombing/arizona* some liberal fuck tries to blame talk radio, and tries to push this unconstitutional bs.
Example:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47669.html
Only someone like you would think that it is controlling speech if you allow both sides to be presented on air. Like I said before, you don't know what the Fairness Doctrine is. You are confusing the Equal Time Rule with the Fairness Doctrine. I will come back to your idiocy later.
The equal time rule was a precursor to the Fairness Doctrine.
Besides, both hindering free speech in my opinion.
Anyone can look up Wikipedia. What is the difference between the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal Time Rule? How do they hinder free speech?
Similar threads
