Dems Vote To Deny Pub Unions Their Right to Collective Bargaining in re: Health Care

[Craig234]

You seem to have completely ignored my point.

Public employees have benefits that are far greater than those of private sector employees. Do you know of any non-union private sector jobs where one can work for 20 years and then retire and collect a check for the rest of their lives regardless of their age?


Also, when a private sector union sits down to negotiate with their company the company is there to represent and protect the shareholders. But when a public union sits down with the government there is no one to protect the 'owners' which is how public unions have been able to enrich themselves over the last couple of decades.

And realistically what we have is a system where public unions legally bribe Democrats into giving them richer contracts through political donations.

Defense contractor pays for weapon system to inefficiently be built in congressional districts in most or all of the 50 states, hires lobbyists including former members and staff of Congress who make it clear to present members positions may await them as well, donating to political campaigns, to get the politicians to give taxpayers money to the contractor: that's "the free-market capitalistic system".

Unions donate to politicians who support unions in having the power to negotiate for decent wages against politicians who are for the owners to pay poverty wages:

That's 'bribery'.

 

[Craig234]

is this a little bit of a strong reaction? I don't see the big deal with the thread title.
How does
"Democrats Vote To Strip Unions Of Collective Bargaining Rights In Massachusetts"
somehow mean
"Stripping ALL unions of ALL bargaining rights"?
that's quite a jump

the original title was a generalization like all titles have to be. I did not think "stripping of all voting rights" when I read it.

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was about Democrats stripping much broader collective bargaining, like the Republicans, which is what the title seemed intended for.

Wrongly.

The whole point was to assert a false equivalency, as the post content showed.

There's a legitimate discussion here about both Republicans and Democrats cutting back on unions' incomes, but it should include the differences accurately.

 

[a777pilot]

And your entire purpose is to have every major political donor be for Republicans.


Save234

Here check this out....

This is my program for campaign finance reform.

My stance on political contributions is as follows:

1. Only American citizens eligible to vote ought be allowed to make political contributions. So that would eliminate, unions, corporations, foreign nationals, special interest groups* and dead people (that's for Cook county).

2. No limits. If a person wants to give their entire fortune to a political candidate, of what business is it of others?

3. No cash and no loans.

4. Full and immediate disclosure. That means within 12 hours of giving the money, the amount, who gave it, to whom it was given and the source of that money should be in the public domain for any and all to see. That also means that even if it just one dollar it must be reported and reported in full. Any contributions that a candidate receives that does not meet these qualifications must be immediately returned and if the money can't be returned it must be turned over to the local, state or federal government, depending on what office the candidate is running for.

That's my idea of campaign finance reform.


*Special Interest groups would include the NRA. They should not be able to give money to any candidate or political party because the NRA has no vote. If the NRA, under my plan, wanted to take a position on an issue, then they would have every right to make their own political ads and air them as they see fit. Just so long as there was no coordination with any party organization or candidate.

The same would hold true for unions. Or churches. Or any organization.

 

[a777pilot]

Unions are there to provide a balancing power for workers so they get a decent middle class income, and the nation's middle class is stronger - something that doesn't happen by magic as some on the right think, such as with the 'trickle down' ideology. Let's not ban public unions - let's have more unions, and a more middle class distribution of wealth, as we used to back in the US 'communist' period of the 50's and 60's and 70's.

You are the enemy of the American worker, of the American middle class, whether you realize it or not.

Tell me, as a former 777 pilot, how is your right-wing ideology doing for the pilots, with the growth of regional airlines and some pilots working for under $20,000 a year, some unable to live close to work facing long drives and getting little sleep under bad working conditions, with fewer and fewer plum 'big carrier' pilot positions like you had?

I have no great problem with the concept of a private organization, a union, in the private business sector. I have a great problem with unions in the public sector.

As for those pilots making $20,000 per year, well, no one is forcing them to do that. They do that because they hope there will soon be a job for them at the big carriers. They are just paying their dues. They have a union. What's the problem?

As I've said before, the sole purpose of the public sector unions is to transfer tax money to the Democrat Party.

 

[Craig234]

Here check this out....

This is my program for campaign finance reform.

It's not very good at all.

First, it places no limits on 'issue' ads - which are almost no different from donations to candidates except they use a technicality.

So they'll be practically the same thing with the same effect, except they'll include a weasel-word to make it an 'issue ad' instead of a 'candidate ad'.

Second, the democratic principle of 'one-man one-vote' isn't help up very well with billionares - interested parties like the Koch brothers or the heirs of dynastic fortunes who directly want to take money from taxpayers and have other policies against the public interest - can buy public opinion with huge spending.

Thirdly, I have no idea what your #3 means. No cash? Write a check?

I like limiting donations to citizens, and I like the disclosure.

If you give money for *elections*, you are entering the public arena and it's public business. Voting should be private.

If we limited donations to something like $2,000 though, I'd be open to their being confidential (e.g., you don't want your defense contractor employer knowing you donated to Democrats or your union to know you donated to Republicans). It's the big donations that buy influence that need transparency.

However, this is largely moot until if and when an honest Supreme Court undoes the corrupt ruling of the radical right. We need a constitutional amendment for it.

 

[Fear No Evil]

I must admit I am still surprised that I am still surprised at the Democrat party's lack of respect for basic human rights. The only logical explanation is racism.

 

[soccerballtux]

When I saw the thread title, I thought it was about Democrats stripping much broader collective bargaining, like the Republicans, which is what the title seemed intended for.

Wrongly.

The whole point was to assert a false equivalency, as the post content showed.

There's a legitimate discussion here about both Republicans and Democrats cutting back on unions' incomes, but it should include the differences accurately.

so what?

 

[werepossum]

Funny, when I read the thread title I immediately recognized the story I had read earlier. Maybe that big "fear center" liberals are always accrediting to conservatives actually has something to do with reading comprehension . . .

 

[JockoJohnson]

How is lowering everyone's pay to a lower level any different?

Raising everyone's pay up to a certain point without regard will cause the price of goods and services to go up. How else would private sector companies make up for the difference in pay that they now have to provide to their employees? I can't stand greedy CEOs or the amount of money that they make compared to what they used to make. I know that the CEO won't give up the profit out of the kindness of their own heart to just increase employees' wages.

Also, I am for PRIVATE sector unions. If the company can't afford the union people, there will either be layoffs or compromise. In PUBLIC sector unions, the first answer has always been to raise taxes because local or state gov'ts could do that to get extra income. Now that people are waking up, politicians can't just raise taxes. Some unions are coping, others aren't.

I would love to see all public sector unions go away but they won't. But the immediate answer isn't to strip them of everything either. If the unions won't negotiate, then do what needs to be done.

 

[Jhhnn]

The OP reeks of false equivalency, not surprising, considering the source.

Let's think this through. Healthcare benefit packages are paid pre-tax. By limiting Unions' power to bargain for these benefits, Unions will just bargain harder on the wage side. They'll demand higher wages to compensate for the higher copays and deductibles.

Who wins? The tax man, silly. Public sector employers could easily end up paying more than they would otherwise because of the tax penalty for employees.