destruction of unions

[flythere]

How can you mention MSNBC and not FOX News in the same breath you jaded liar..

Wow, spoken like a true liberal, a "jaded liar"?!?! When you can't reason with logic, you resort to name calling and demonizing!! You sound just like your friends there on MSNBC! I'll bet you get most of your facts from Media Matters and Huffington huh!

 

[JT12345]

Nah I don't watch MSNBC or read Huffington. Never mentioned I did. Your assumptions and attacks are hysterical (hysteria). Fox news is a bigger joke than MSNBC because they deny what they really are. I hear they like to kiss rich arse a lot. Keep attacking moderates and see what that gets you in November.

What annoys moderates are extreme people claiming they are moderate or the norm when they are not.

 

[flythere]

Nah I don't watch MSNBC or read Huffington. Never mentioned I did. Your assumptions and attacks are hysterical (hysteria). Fox news is a bigger joke than MSNBC because they deny what they really are. I hear they like to kiss rich arse a lot. Keep attacking moderates and see what that gets you in November.

What annoys moderates are extreme people claiming they are moderate or the norm when they are not.

Check your posts pal! You started in with the attacks, not me! What is a moderate? Is that code for progressive?

 

[JT12345]

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Have they changed at all since the Obama administration called them out on being on the right? I missed most of the O'reilly interview with Obama and the hole perspective thing. Just saw clips of it. I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC that much.

Here is a definition for Moderate since you don't seem to know it. It annoys me when you talk about one extreme and not the other. It is being phony.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moderate

mod·er·ate (mdr-t)
adj.
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3.
a. Of medium or average quantity or extent.
b. Of limited or average quality; mediocre.

*********4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.*********


_________________


Here is the def of phony if you need that too.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phony

pho·ny also pho·ney (fn)
adj. pho·ni·er, pho·ni·est
1.
a. Not genuine or real; counterfeit: a phony credit card.
b. False; spurious: a phony name.
2. Not honest or truthful; deceptive: a phony excuse.
3.
a. Insincere or hypocritical.
***********b. Giving a false impression of truth or authenticity; specious.********

 

[densoo]

Private schools take in less per student and preformed better. They get better teachers for less money. Why? I would guess it is because if they don't perform they would go under and bad teachers are fired. Teachers do it because they love it not for the govt bennifits.

A big reason private school kids perform better may be because,

- if their parents can afford a private school they likely can afford other things that are positive for learning like a roof over their head, a quiet neighborhood, and regular nutrition

- when you shell out $5K or $10K or $15K a year for a private education you're going to be FAR more involved in what your "investment" is doing with his/her time, like homework

 

[densoo]

That union memberships have been cut in half in Wisconsin is neither a Fox nor an MSNBC issue. It is a chilling message to anyone who enjoys the benefits of a union, public or private.

 

[dragontamer]

Go Walker!

No public unions--ridiculous idea to have unions extorting more money out of taxpayers! How about if the job does not pay enough, you do something else?

Husband of a school teacher (who happens to agree with me). We're broke and the shenanigans and democratic party money laundering must end.

 

[WalterSobchak]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The public sector unions are the first to be targeted because they are easy targets. No one wants to pay more taxes and, instead of cutting the fat and/or pay of useless "executives" at the school district, as well as city, county, state, and federal levels...we're fed this B.S. that teachers' already mediocre salaries are going to break the bank and that they aren't worth the money we pay them. In reality, most of them aren't paid remotely what they're worth. A huge number of them are put in no-win situations where they receive virtually no support from administrators and either deflecting blame from increasingly hostile, "damned-if-you-do/damned-if-you-don't" parents or dealing with kids who have zero parental involvement on the other. But, hey, it's easier just to blame the teachers isntead of the frivilous spending on the part of the "executives" drawing the huge paychecks...after all, those lazy scumbag teachers get the entire summer off while we all have to work. Screw them.

The important thing is this: Once the right to organize is forcibly taken from one group, more groups will be targeted and the previous group will be used as precedent. If you think, for a moment, that your union is the only rightous one and that it will never be faced with the level of scrutiny that public sector unions are facing...you're sadly mistaken. It's coming. The teachers and other public employees will be first; you will be next.

 

[JT12345]

The important thing is this: Once the right to organize is forcibly taken from one group, more groups will be targeted and the previous group will be used as precedent. If you think, for a moment, that your union is the only rightous one and that it will never be faced with the level of scrutiny that public sector unions are facing...you're sadly mistaken. It's coming. The teachers and other public employees will be first; you will be next.

+1

Like military pensions?

After all if things get so bad in the economy most kids will look to the military as an option reducing competition for it. And even the military will probably be scaling back in ops too.

Pretty obvious where this is leading.

It is even funnier because these guys think this can't happen.

 

[igneousy2]

The difference between CEO pay and private sector union pay and public sector union pay is the governments extortive powers.

If a private company wants to pay it's CEO 1.0 Billion dollars a year and wants to pay all it's other employee 1.0 million dollars a year, and is then able to go into the market, raise the prices of it's stuff, sell it's stuff, and then still make it's ends meet every year then MORE POWER to this company. If they try to go into the market and raise the price of it's stuff too high in comparison to it's competitors, I don't have to buy their crap, they can't make ends meet....it's unsustainable and they go bankrupt.

If a public sector union demands a high salary, the spineless public officials give it to them to preserve their reeelection possibilities, they go to the market (i.e. me), they MAKE me pay higher taxes at the threat of going to jail or losing my property.

That is the point. A private sector employee gets paid from monies that were given to their companies voluntarily. A public sector employee gets paid from monies that they were forced to give to their employers.

 

[jayme]

It blows my mind how easily the right has brainwashed you fools into thinking that unions are bad. Strong unions = a strong middle class. No unions = a strong upper classs.

BTW, pilots are labour, not management.

 

[densoo]

If a public sector union demands a high salary, the spineless public officials give it to them to preserve their reeelection possibilities, they go to the market (i.e. me), they MAKE me pay higher taxes at the threat of going to jail or losing my property.

And then you vote them out of office--that is also the free market.

 

[realityman]

The public sector unions are the first to be targeted because they are easy targets.

The important thing is this: Once the right to organize is forcibly taken from one group, more groups will be targeted and the previous group will be used as precedent. If you think, for a moment, that your union is the only rightous one and that it will never be faced with the level of scrutiny that public sector unions are facing...you're sadly mistaken. It's coming. The teachers and other public employees will be first; you will be next.

BINGO!!!

I will bet my next ten years of salary that private sector companies who have unionized work forces are practically drooling at the thought of eliminating public sector unions! What a great FIRST STEP in coming after the private sector unions.

Anyone who thinks this will end with just the elimination, or neutering, of public sector unions isn't seeing the bigger picture.

Some of you may want to read Flying the Line to get a better understanding of where our industry would be without our unions. And then decide how good a thing it is to watch the attacks on unions being successful.

This will most assuredly not end with the public sector unions.

 

[GoPats]

BINGO!!!

I will bet my next ten years of salary that private sector companies who have unionized work forces are practically drooling at the thought of eliminating public sector unions! What a great FIRST STEP in coming after the private sector unions.

Anyone who thinks this will end with just the elimination, or neutering, of public sector unions isn't seeing the bigger picture.

Some of you may want to read Flying the Line to get a better understanding of where our industry would be without our unions. And then decide how good a thing it is to watch the attacks on unions being successful.

This will most assuredly not end with the public sector unions.

How right you are (unfortunately). Public sector unions are incidental to the big picture here. Airline management's wet dream is union elimination.

 

[flythere]

Do you admit Fox News is on the right like MSNBC is on the left? or not?

Have they changed at all since the Obama administration called them out on being on the right? I missed most of the O'reilly interview with Obama and the hole perspective thing. Just saw clips of it. I don't watch Fox News or MSNBC that much.

Here is a definition for Moderate since you don't seem to know it. It annoys me when you talk about one extreme and not the other. It is being phony.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moderate

mod·er·ate (mdr-t)
adj.
1. Being within reasonable limits; not excessive or extreme: a moderate price.
2. Not violent or subject to extremes; mild or calm; temperate: a moderate climate.
3.
a. Of medium or average quantity or extent.
b. Of limited or average quality; mediocre.

*********4. Opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion.*********


_________________


Here is the def of phony if you need that too.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/phony

pho·ny also pho·ney (fn)
adj. pho·ni·er, pho·ni·est
1.
a. Not genuine or real; counterfeit: a phony credit card.
b. False; spurious: a phony name.
2. Not honest or truthful; deceptive: a phony excuse.
3.
a. Insincere or hypocritical.
***********b. Giving a false impression of truth or authenticity; specious.********

It's obvious that you are slanted towards a liberal opinion, that's your choice, maybe your upbringing had something to do with it!

I've been in a union or association for the past 22 years in some way shape or form, and have seen enough first hand to form my own opionion, based on my experiences. As I stated before, unions are a necessary evil, they do good, BUT they too like big business can get a little carried away.

So there's plenty of room on both sides! My point with you, is that you immediately go right to name calling instead of having a conversation, which is too bad! It appears your emotions get the best of you in a hurry!

Which explains why liberals have such a hard time getting a point across! You seem very typical, as soon as someone disagrees with you, you immediately dive into the Saul Alinsky playbook "Rules For Radicals" And, if you can demonize me, call me a name, in this case "Liar" and "phony" then you can try and marginalize or discount what I have to say!

I respect you for your opionion and will not demonize or call you names! That's not what free speech is about.

I look forward to your reponse!

 

[pilotyip]

It blows my mind how easily the right has brainwashed you fools into thinking that unions are bad. Strong unions = a strong middle class. No unions = a strong upper classs.

BTW, pilots are labour, not management.

Unions kill companies with excessive demands, and make them non-competitive. In 1994 the UAW pushed GM into a deal it knew it could most likely not fulfill. It gave unlimited medical and COLA to retirees. GM knew a lengthy strike might drive them into BK. They had exhausted the equity markets, and borrowing was the only solution. Much like living off your credit cards. So they bet on maybe things would work, but they knew in the end they were in trouble. The power of a potential union strike drove them to make a bad management decision.

As they lost market share to foreign rivals, Detroit's auto makers and the UAW lost the power to set standards on labor costs. Yet during the prosperous 1990s, they seemed reluctant to accept the fact that their business model -- with its expensive defined-benefit health and pension programs -- was driving the domestic industry toward ruin. The UAW and its biggest employer have effectively conceded that their golden age of dominance is over.

GM executives consistently acknowledged that it couldn't be competitive in North America without a fundamental change in its labor-cost structure.

The UAW got a harsh lesson in the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings when former GM parts unit Delphi Corp. sought Chapter 11 protection in 2005, and pushed through substantial job and wage cuts under a deal subsidized by GM.

GM's obligation to provide health care for 412,356 union members, retirees and surviving spouses lies at the heart of yesterday's agreement. Even after a partial overhaul of retiree health-care benefits in 2005, GM still faced a $51 billion obligation to UAW members. Health-care obligations added more than $1,900 to the cost of every GM vehicle sold in the U.S. in 2006, a heavy burden given that many GM vehicles sold for less than competing Toyota vehicles.

And then you vote them out of office--that is also the free market.

as they are doing in Wisc, Tuesday will prove how effective this is.

BTW: From the history books, it is 1941, Russia and Germany sign a non-aggression pact. The US is mobilizing, the arms are going to the UK under lead lease. Russia dosn't like arms going to someone who is a war with their buddy Germany. So the communist party calls for strikes throughout the US armaments industry using organized labor. Now June 1941 Germany invades Russia, Russia needs lean lease materiel. Hopkins tells Stalin that the strikes are limiting US arms production, suddenly the strikes diminish. History of labor unions, it is in the history books.

 

[Smarta$$]

Private schools take in less per student and preformed better. They get better teachers for less money. Why? I would guess it is because if they don't perform they would go under and bad teachers are fired. Teachers do it because they love it not for the govt bennifits.

With spelling and grammar like that, you may want to argue a different topic.....

 

[Smarta$$]

I disagree that private school teachers are better than public school teachers. My kids go to private school and there are many more dynamics at work other than the quality of the teachers (demographics, parent involvement/investment, social class, etc). There are good and bad teachers on both sides.

Exactly right. I say again, exactly right. If you can't understand and acknowledge this reality, you're to stupid to even participate in this debate.

 

[Smarta$$]

No teachers lost their jobs, which would have happened as a cost savings under the union plan, taxes are going to drop in Wisc. BO won't even go near Wisc, because he knows Walker has a very good chance of winning the election and he could not stand the association with a union failure. The unions have spent so much money fighting this change throughout the US that they will be close to $70M less to support the presidential election in the fall. The tax paying public is tried of seeing a public emplyee retire at age 45 on 3/4 of their pay with lifetime COLA and unlimited medical. Almost no one in the private sector has that.

Talk about union spending, walker has spent TEN TIMES AS MUCH money as his opponent. TEN TIMES as much. Something fox news won't tell you.

 

[Smarta$$]

Nah I don't watch MSNBC or read Huffington. Never mentioned I did. Your assumptions and attacks are hysterical (hysteria). Fox news is a bigger joke than MSNBC because they deny what they really are. I hear they like to kiss rich arse a lot. Keep attacking moderates and see what that gets you in November.

What annoys moderates are extreme people claiming they are moderate or the norm when they are not.

I agree. Both have political perspectives. Fox is utterly dishonest about what they are. Also much more deceptive with their methods. I will give them credit for being crafty and effective.