/dev/null Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 And with that being said, I am going to back to attempt to do some companies harm. Peace out. Going back to work? :lol:
Fingon Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 Such a gem. You believe that every company treats their employees with respect and dignity. Fact is that's not true in many cases. I guess that Freedom you talk about is the freedom of some employers to treat their workers unfairly or threaten them. Nice. So how will eliminating secret ballots fix any of that? The employer can always go after the people who vote FOR a union, if they know who they are. Your excuses are laughable.
pBills Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 So how will eliminating secret ballots fix any of that? The employer can always go after the people who vote FOR a union, if they know who they are. Your excuses are laughable. And then that employer can face heavy fines from the DOL. What excuses, not making any excuses for working with/for unions. As much as some people like to live in lala land and blame everything bad that can happen on the union or think that all employers are great and fair - I have seen differently. I fully support the union.
KD in CA Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 Such a gem. You believe that every company treats their employees with respect and dignity. Fact is that's not true in many cases. I guess that Freedom you talk about is the freedom of some employers to treat their workers unfairly or threaten them. Nice. I don't give a rats' ass about "respect and dignity". The issue at hand is employment and money, no matter how much the union stooges try to portray their action as altruistic. And yes, most companies treat their employees just fine. That's the whole point of a free market, if you don't like the way you are being paid or treated, you are free to leave and pursue another opportunity. You on the other hand, believe that every company is abusive toward everything and everyone and thus support punishing all companies with draconian measures because after all, when it comes to eeeevil companies, they are guilty until proven innocent. And then that employer can face heavy fines from the DOL. Heavy fines....awesome! Another way we're working to keep the US on top of the economic heap! Now, please explain to us again how it is abusive for Wal-Mart to express its political opinions in the workplace but how it's perfectly fine for labor unions to do the same thing (you know, even though one of them actually is speaking on behalf of the company's owners and the other isn't.). I was riveted by your "paperwork" explanation above.
pBills Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 I don't give a rats' ass about "respect and dignity". The issue at hand is employment and money, no matter how much the union stooges try to portray their action as altruistic. And yes, most companies treat their employees just fine. That's the whole point of a free market, if you don't like the way you are being paid or treated, you are free to leave and pursue another opportunity. You on the other hand, believe that every company is abusive toward everything and everyone and thus support punishing all companies with draconian measures because after all, when it comes to eeeevil companies, they are guilty until proven innocent. Heavy fines....awesome! Another way we're working to keep the US on top of the economic heap! Now, please explain to us again how it is abusive for Wal-Mart to express its political opinions in the workplace but how it's perfectly fine for labor unions to do the same thing (you know, even though one of them actually is speaking on behalf of the company's owners and the other isn't.). I was riveted by your "paperwork" explanation above. I don't give a rats' ass about "respect and dignity". Show a lot about your character. Yes, SOME companies do treat their employees fine. On the other hand some don't, I guess you believe that's just fine. Do I believe that EVERY company is abusive, no. Way to try though. Some companies are nasty. I have said it before, and I'll say it again... Wal-mart is one of them. I have NEVER said that it's bad for the Wal-mart management/ownership to express their political beliefs. Never. They have every right. Just as unions have the right to endorse. I know for a fact that many unions this year based their endorsements on membership polling results. Yes, there were even some republicans in the mix. So keep trying to place words in my mouth. Not working.
Fingon Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 And then that employer can face heavy fines from the DOL. What excuses, not making any excuses for working with/for unions. As much as some people like to live in lala land and blame everything bad that can happen on the union or think that all employers are great and fair - I have seen differently. I fully support the union. And what is the benefit of getting rid of the secret ballot?
Fingon Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 Go back and read some of what I wrote earlier. You NEVER give a good reason as to why everyone needs to know who voted for what. Do you honestly think that non-secret ballots are less corruptable than secret ballots? You would have to be out of your mind. The fact is that anonymity protects those who decide to vote against the more vocal and powerful people. "The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices are confidential. The key aim is to ensure the voter records a sincere choice by forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation or bribery." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_ballot You are truly a fool if you think this bill will decrease strong-arming. You also never explain how companies can influence the vote if they have no access to the records of who voted for what. PS: Guess what? Unions are as bad as employers.
KD in CA Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 Show a lot about your character. Yes, SOME companies do treat their employees fine. On the other hand some don't, I guess you believe that's just fine. Yes, it shows I have enough character to stand up for myself and take the responsibility for working somewhere where I feel appreciated. I don't need whiners like you doing it on my behalf. I also don't believe in government overlords. Do I believe that EVERY company is abusive, no. Way to try though. Gee, I guess you missed the sarcasm there as I was responding to your characterization of me as thinking that EVERY company treats their employees just fine. Big shock that you would miss the double standard as you were in the process of employing it. Do I believe that EVERY company is abusive, no. Way to try though. Some companies are nasty. I have said it before, and I'll say it again... Wal-mart is one of them. I have NEVER said that it's bad for the Wal-mart management/ownership to express their political beliefs. Never. They have every right. Just as unions have the right to endorse. I know for a fact that many unions this year based their endorsements on membership polling results. Yes, there were even some republicans in the mix. So keep trying to place words in my mouth. Not working. Really? You apparently have a big problem with WalMart protecting it's business by discouraging unions. How is that supporting WalMart's right to expressing it's beliefs? Your entire argument is based on your belief that WalMart shouldn't have the right to run its business as it sees fit.
KD in CA Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 You NEVER give a good reason as to why everyone needs to know who voted for what. Do you honestly think that non-secret ballots are less corruptable than secret ballots? You would have to be out of your mind. The fact is that anonymity protects those who decide to vote against the more vocal and powerful people. It's part of the continuing trend of zero-tolerance for any opinion that isn't certified by the far left. Not supporting the union will soon be on par with questioning the Church of Global WarmingTM or having the gall to suggest that oil companies are earning a fair and reasonable profit.
justnzane Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 It's part of the continuing trend of zero-tolerance for any opinion that isn't certified by the far left. Not supporting the union will soon be on par with questioning the Church of Global WarmingTM or having the gall to suggest that oil companies are earning a fair and reasonable profit. Dude, that is the pot calling the kettle black. You attack every thought that is slightly left. Fact of the matter is that Unions do give the workers some protection. I worked for a couple different companies during my late teens, where the work conditions sucked horribly and the bosses would can anyone for even saying the word union. The one job I had, they had me as a minor working 65 hours a week for 40 hours salary. They got away with this by bribing the board of labor. I watched quite a few get fired for asking for a 20 cent raise from one year to the next. A union would have been the best thing to keep a lot of the workers from quitting the job. FWIW, this company went belly up as people stopped enjoying their overpriced and understaffed services, and has been bought out by a better parent company, which has unionized the company. My buddies who still work there got a 50% instantly, along with benefits and more reasonable hours (no salary bull sh-- for a crap job). On the other hand, I worked for NYS as a unionized maintenance worker on my college campus. The pay was great, and the downfall was the union would protect every POS that shouldn't have a job. There were perverted scumbags running around a college campus as state workers, and wouldn't get canned for their scumbaggery. Also, there was little incentive to bust your ass in this job, and could get away with sleeping on the job. The fact is some unions can be too good for workers which screws the company, where an un-unionized company can horribly abuse their workers. It is all about finding a great company that treats and pays its workers well enough to avoid unionization, or finding a union that does a great job in getting rid of the dead weight.
Alaska Darin Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 Dude, that is the pot calling the kettle black. You attack every thought that is slightly left. Fact of the matter is that Unions do give the workers some protection. I worked for a couple different companies during my late teens, where the work conditions sucked horribly and the bosses would can anyone for even saying the word union. The one job I had, they had me as a minor working 65 hours a week for 40 hours salary. They got away with this by bribing the board of labor. I watched quite a few get fired for asking for a 20 cent raise from one year to the next. A union would have been the best thing to keep a lot of the workers from quitting the job. FWIW, this company went belly up as people stopped enjoying their overpriced and understaffed services, and has been bought out by a better parent company, which has unionized the company. My buddies who still work there got a 50% instantly, along with benefits and more reasonable hours (no salary bull sh-- for a crap job). On the other hand, I worked for NYS as a unionized maintenance worker on my college campus. The pay was great, and the downfall was the union would protect every POS that shouldn't have a job. There were perverted scumbags running around a college campus as state workers, and wouldn't get canned for their scumbaggery. Also, there was little incentive to bust your ass in this job, and could get away with sleeping on the job. The fact is some unions can be too good for workers which screws the company, where an un-unionized company can horribly abuse their workers. It is all about finding a great company that treats and pays its workers well enough to avoid unionization, or finding a union that does a great job in getting rid of the dead weight. So you needed union protection from the government you worship? Jesus, you're brilliant.
justnzane Posted August 5, 2008 Posted August 5, 2008 So you needed union protection from the government you worship? Jesus, you're brilliant. Personally I'd rather have smaller government. However, you Republicans don't seem to believe in that
Alaska Darin Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Personally I'd rather have smaller government. However, you Republicans don't seem to believe in that I'm not a Republican, nor have I ever been.
Chilly Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Personally I'd rather have smaller government. However, you Republicans don't seem to believe in that Name everything you'd cut in our government.
justnzane Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 Name everything you'd cut in our government. First off, that unneccessary war in Iraq. Though it is time to make the Iraqi's start paying. Then again, if you occupy a country, you must use its resources . Second off, the Department of Homeland Security. Even after one major attack on our soil, I still do not see the need for all of these extra bodies in this dept. Third the DEA, way too many people and resources being used in gov't for a "war" that we'll never win. Just legalize it and tax it. Fourth, I would prefer a tax code that made the IRS downsize. If done correctly, a consumption tax can work just as well without as many IRS agents. That is a few I could name right away.
HBSS151 Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 First off, that unneccessary war in Iraq. Though it is time to make the Iraqi's start paying. Then again, if you occupy a country, you must use its resources .Second off, the Department of Homeland Security. Even after one major attack on our soil, I still do not see the need for all of these extra bodies in this dept. Third the DEA, way too many people and resources being used in gov't for a "war" that we'll never win. Just legalize it and tax it. Fourth, I would prefer a tax code that made the IRS downsize. If done correctly, a consumption tax can work just as well without as many IRS agents. That is a few I could name right away. 1. Things could be worse 2. Things could be much worse 3. Paying too much on the street ? 4. You're right - you're batting .250
KD in CA Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 That is a few I could name right away. That's it? Here, I'll give you an easy one: how about the Federal Dept of Education?
justnzane Posted August 6, 2008 Posted August 6, 2008 That's it? Here, I'll give you an easy one: how about the Federal Dept of Education? Considering how little of the budget is spent on it, I didn't see it as a big issue. However, I do believe it could be cut out, as education is technically a State's Right and not a Federal one. That said, some states would let their schools get even worse than they are now without Federal intervention. The No Child Left Behind Act meant well, but was underfunded and had too much emphasis on teaching to a test as opposed to teachers teaching in depth of content. This is one dept, that either should be purged from the Federal Level or better funded, because the middle ground it is at, leaves it ineffective in quite a few ways.
Recommended Posts