RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Tue Sep 18, 2018 7:17 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2012 10:09 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17343
Location: The blue parts of the map
This is HUGE. MI going right-to-work was unthinkable, now it's hours away from happening. You thought WI was big, this is bigger. While everyone was fussing about the Fiscal Cliff a lame duck legislature used a quirk of the MI referendum law to ram through an ALEC/ Koch Bros right-to-work law and there's nothing whatsoever the voters, 94% of whom oppose right to work, can do about it.

Or at least nothing until 2014.

The GOP governor is playing dumb, saying well lookie here what the legislature did all on their own, and of course he can't wait to sign it. What's he going to do, publicly congratulate the Koch Bros for coming up with a new game plan that lets things happen off the Ed Show?

If you live in MI, and you give a lick about the class war (which, you will notice, we're still losing) you might consider a day in Lansing tomorrow. It won't solve anything, but it will show the country that there's still an opposition. Oppositions usually prevail in a long march, which is what this is.

-----

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... higan?lite


Quote:
GOP set to deliver blow to labor in union-heavy Michigan

By Michael O'Brien, NBC News
Follow @mpoindc

Updated 7:39 p.m. — Republicans stand on the cusp of delivering a major blow to organized labor, as they prepare to vote Tuesday on legislation to make Michigan – a state linked to unions in the public conscious – a “right to work” state.

State lawmakers are expected to approve legislation barring rules in workplaces that make union membership a condition of employment. [1] The offensive would mark the culmination of efforts by Midwestern Republican governors to curb labor rights in the heart of industrial America, where unions once loomed large.




1. Even NBC is guilty of passing disinfo. Right to work makes union dues optional, banning the UNION SHOP. The CLOSED SHOP is already banned by previous acts of Congress.

_________________
We used to hang our traitors. Now we elect them to lead us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 1:14 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:13 am
Posts: 309
Location: Huber Heights, Ohio
This is HUGE. MI going right-to-work was unthinkable, now it's hours away from happening. You thought WI was big, this is bigger. While everyone was fussing about the Fiscal Cliff a lame duck legislature used a quirk of the MI referendum law to ram through an ALEC/ Koch Bros right-to-work law and there's nothing whatsoever the voters, 94% of whom oppose right to work, can do about it.

Or at least nothing until 2014.

The GOP governor is playing dumb, saying well lookie here what the legislature did all on their own, and of course he can't wait to sign it. What's he going to do, publicly congratulate the Koch Bros for coming up with a new game plan that lets things happen off the Ed Show?

If you live in MI, and you give a lick about the class war (which, you will notice, we're still losing) you might consider a day in Lansing tomorrow. It won't solve anything, but it will show the country that there's still an opposition. Oppositions usually prevail in a long march, which is what this is.

-----

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... higan?lite






1. Even NBC is guilty of passing disinfo. Right to work makes union dues optional, banning the UNION SHOP. The CLOSED SHOP is already banned by previous acts of Congress.

Rick Snyder and his republican cronies are ALL SNIVELING COWARDS, afraid to put this up to discussion and locking down the state capital while the "vote" was taking place. He is also what the teabaggers like to accuse the democrats of being, A FASCIST DICTATOR, in regard to giving himself the power to dissolve existing city governments and taking them over!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:50 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 12:07 pm
Posts: 2593
I have nothing but the deepest disdain for anti-worker scum. I want them all to eat shit and suffer the consequences.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 3:26 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17343
Location: The blue parts of the map
It passed. Goes to the chickenshit governor for signature.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/us/pr ... -plan.html

The sun's not yellow, it's chicken.

Quite the day in Lansing. Won't stop it, but long marches begin with defeats, or else they wouldn't be long marches. The Midwest has shown me a lot these past few months. Unfortunately, the majority of voters is not yet on board. But then, that's what makes it a long march.

Nous marchons sur de détruire Koch-ocracy!

_________________
We used to hang our traitors. Now we elect them to lead us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:17 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
I believe that this over-reach may have just doomed the Republican Party in Michigan for a generation. They obviously have proven themselves to be anti-worker beyond any denial. Word is that the lawmakers were all threatened if they didn't do the Koch's bidding and vote for it. They said they'd primary anyone who said no, but that if they did, they'd be showered with money.

They were bought off.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:26 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
Snyder just signed it into law. They have suddenly mobilized the working people of the state of Michigan.

Game on.

I predict the right will regret this action.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:39 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17343
Location: The blue parts of the map
The tactic is definitely to confront the Koch-ocracy, forcing it to get ever more nasty and ultimately over-reach by committing acts of economic violence that are clearly seen as same. We may be at a tipping point right here, but they said the same thing about Wisconsin.

Unfortunately, this is something of a scorched-earth strategy, and the short run may see more major defeats. It's going to get pretty nasty.

_________________
We used to hang our traitors. Now we elect them to lead us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:55 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:46 pm
Posts: 5116
Location: Treasure Coast, Florida & Fairfield County, Connecticut
Snyder just signed it into law. They have suddenly mobilized the working people of the state of Michigan.

Game on.

I predict the right will regret this action.

GoU


:arrow: Snyder may have signed this bill into law, but he hasn't deterred the power of the people!!

How Michigan Voters Can Repeal The GOP’s Anti-Union Powergrab

Earlier today, the Michigan House passed a so-called “right-to-work” law. The anti-union legislation, which permits workers to benefit from the high salaries gained through collective bargaining without contributing to the union that negotiates those higher salaries for them, will cost both union and non-union workers an estimated $1,500 a year in wages, in addition to costing thousands of Michiganders health benefits and pensions. Anti-union lawmakers attached a budget appropriation to the bill in order to thwart efforts to repeal it by referendum — the Michigan Constitution provides that “[t]he power of referendum does not extend to acts making appropriations for state institutions or to meet deficiencies in state funds.” This is not the end of the story, however. Under that same constitution, Michigan voters may still restore the lost wages and collective bargaining power denied by this bill through a state ballot initiative:

The people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and to enact and reject laws, called the initiative, and the power to approve or reject laws enacted by the legislature, called the referendum. The power of initiative extends only to laws which the legislature may enact under this constitution. The power of referendum does not extend to acts making appropriations for state institutions or to meet deficiencies in state funds and must be invoked in the manner prescribed by law within 90 days following the final adjournment of the legislative session at which the law was enacted. To invoke the initiative or referendum, petitions signed by a number of registered electors, not less than eight percent for initiative and five percent for referendum of the total vote cast for all candidates for governor at the last preceding general election at which a governor was elected shall be required. No law as to which the power of referendum properly has been invoked shall be effective thereafter unless approved by a majority of the electors voting thereon at the next general election.

By attaching the appropriations provision to the anti-union bill, its supporters accomplished two things: they increased the number of signatures necessary to place it before the voters, and they guaranteed that, if enacted, it will be in effect at least until it can be repealed in the next general election. Nevertheless, Michigan voters are far from powerless. In the last Michigan gubernatorial election, voters cast a total of 3,226,088 votes. So workers and their allies will need to collect just under 260,000 signatures to place a repeal initiative on the ballot.

_________________
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:01 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:23 pm
Posts: 7389
Location: the big mikan
an interesting conundrum

michigan has the highest rates of unionization and unemployment in the mid west. mere coincidence.

unions are democratic supporters.

democrats favor freedom of choice for abortion

democrats oppose freedom of choice for workers

so if a woman has a right to choose, why not a worker?

_________________
Everybody, sooner or later, sits down to a banquet of consequences. - Robert Louis Stevenson


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:11 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 5:38 pm
Posts: 3073
Now they do have the right to choose...to work for less money and fewer benefits. Yay team!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:16 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
an interesting conundrum

michigan has the highest rates of unionization and unemployment in the mid west. mere coincidence.

unions are democratic supporters.

democrats favor freedom of choice for abortion

democrats oppose freedom of choice for workers

so if a woman has a right to choose, why not a worker?

Certainly they have a right to choose. They do not have to work at a unionized workplace. No one is forced to work anywhere. You can go to the non-union shop. Hey, they don't pay nearly as much, but so what?

This is how the right-wing theory goes to hell: Say you want to join a health club, and go use their equipment.

Do you have a choice whether you pay or not? If this type of law were universal, then the health club owner would have to let everyone in, whether they paid dues to the club or not. And, what if they wanted better equipment than the owner had, but couldn't afford (because most of his patrons aren't paying)? Well, they could sue him to force him to buy new equipment!

With right-to-work, the contract covers everyone. Non-members can still file grievances, and the union is required by law to represent them, and spend union dollars in doing so. If the worker feels the union did not represent them enough, they can sue the union.

So, it's the right to free-load. I'm sure Tritumi loves that.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:49 am 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:16 am
Posts: 2458
This is according to the game plan of those who now run the republican party - the right wing loonies who want to destroy the Democratic Party by destroying the middle class in the process. They have and continue to prove they do not give a shit about people - it's all about Greed + Money = Power with these bastards. We may have won the Battle of November, but are in danger of losing the war at the state level.

The Michigan law, and whole legislative process is almost word for word from ALEC. Then you cap that off with a governor who is a lying sack of shit. He campaigned as a moderate, but as soon as he got into office, turned extreme right. There is talk of recall here, but given what happened in Wisconsin, probably won't be successful.

When are we going to learn our lesson and stop believing ANYTHING a republican says? They keep on lying and the low information voter keeps voting against their own interests. First Wisconsin, then Ohio and now Michigan. Where and when, folks?

_________________
"Illigitimi non carborundum"

"A vote for ANY republican is a vote to destroy the middle class and our democracy".

Righties hate democracy because they can not honestly win national elections with their current message.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 11:27 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 5:46 pm
Posts: 5116
Location: Treasure Coast, Florida & Fairfield County, Connecticut
:arrow: This Guv of Michigan once again proves that he is clueless when it comes to labor unions. he was on "Morning Joe" today complete with his A.L.E.C. talking points extolling the virtues of what he and the Republican legislature have done. The phrase "freedom of choice" is the wordage that the American Legislative Exchange Commission used in its selling of the law to these Republican "legislators", and part of the talking points they were told to use when appearing in the media. It is pretty clear that this Guv doesn't have a clue about labor unions. It is so political, that the wording of this law was verbatim from A.L.E.C. and now the Guv goes on network tv and makes an ass out of himself trying to explain what he and the Republican legislature have done. I do hope that labor union leaders who appear in the media do a better job at dispensing with this lie.


Michigan Guv Defends Right-To-Work: Gives Workers ‘Freedom Of Choice’

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R) defended his state's right-to-work legislation on Wednesday, saying it will lead to more jobs and give workers "freedom of choice. "I don't believe this is actually anti-union," he said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "If you look at it, I believe this is pro-worker." MSNBC's Richard Wolffe pressed the governor on the legislation, saying the it "undermines" the ability for unions to organize. "This does not deal with organizing at all," Snyder responded. "This does not deal with collective bargaining at all. This has nothing to do with the relationship between an employer and a union. This is about the relationship between unions and workers. And this is about giving workers the power to choose."

www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com

_________________
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:39 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:35 pm
Posts: 1364
Location: Dallas, Texas
Certainly they have a right to choose. They do not have to work at a unionized workplace. No one is forced to work anywhere. You can go to the non-union shop. Hey, they don't pay nearly as much, but so what?

This is how the right-wing theory goes to hell: Say you want to join a health club, and go use their equipment.

Do you have a choice whether you pay or not? If this type of law were universal, then the health club owner would have to let everyone in, whether they paid dues to the club or not. And, what if they wanted better equipment than the owner had, but couldn't afford (because most of his patrons aren't paying)? Well, they could sue him to force him to buy new equipment!

With right-to-work, the contract covers everyone. Non-members can still file grievances, and the union is required by law to represent them, and spend union dollars in doing so. If the worker feels the union did not represent them enough, they can sue the union.

So, it's the right to free-load. I'm sure Tritumi loves that.

GoU

"This is how the right-wing theory goes to hell: Say you want to join a health club, and go use their equipment.

Do you have a choice whether you pay or not? If this type of law were universal, then the health club owner would have to let everyone in, whether they paid dues to the club or not. And, what if they wanted better equipment than the owner had, but couldn't afford (because most of his patrons aren't paying)? Well, they could sue him to force him to buy new equipment!"


That's a ridiculous comparison...everyone chooses where to work based on many variables, including the offer of compensation from the employer....the fact that Unions have designed their model to cover everyone in the workplace was obviously done to force workers into joining the union, so the problem seems to be with the model. Workers should absolutely have the right to choose whether they want to be in a union or not...the same goes for the Union, they should be able to only provide benefits to those who are members.

Denny Crane!

_________________

"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
President Barack Obama


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:21 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:56 am
Posts: 2284
"This is how the right-wing theory goes to hell: Say you want to join a health club, and go use their equipment.

Do you have a choice whether you pay or not? If this type of law were universal, then the health club owner would have to let everyone in, whether they paid dues to the club or not. And, what if they wanted better equipment than the owner had, but couldn't afford (because most of his patrons aren't paying)? Well, they could sue him to force him to buy new equipment!"


That's a ridiculous comparison...everyone chooses where to work based on many variables, including the offer of compensation from the employer....the fact that Unions have designed their model to cover everyone in the workplace was obviously done to force workers into joining the union, so the problem seems to be with the model. Workers should absolutely have the right to choose whether they want to be in a union or not...the same goes for the Union, they should be able to only provide benefits to those who are members.

Denny Crane!


the fact that Unions have designed their model to cover everyone in the workplace was obviously done to force workers into joining the union, so the problem seems to be with the model.

Shitty Faux News colored glasses logic.

Everyone being covered means no unfair treatment to anyone.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:39 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:35 pm
Posts: 1364
Location: Dallas, Texas

the fact that Unions have designed their model to cover everyone in the workplace was obviously done to force workers into joining the union, so the problem seems to be with the model.

Shitty Faux News colored glasses logic.

Everyone being covered means no unfair treatment to anyone.


That's assuming there is any unfair treatment at all....please remember that there are laws that cover workers and many of their rights, it's not like it's 1970.....again, everyone gets a choice, you cant be any fairer than that, workers should choose whether or not to be in the union, and therefore whether they want to pay for the benefits of being in the union....if they choose not to, then they should not expect to get the benefits of being in the union.
Everyone gets a choice, nothing is forced....quite simple, really.

Denny Crane!

_________________

"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
President Barack Obama


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:05 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
"This is how the right-wing theory goes to hell: Say you want to join a health club, and go use their equipment.

Do you have a choice whether you pay or not? If this type of law were universal, then the health club owner would have to let everyone in, whether they paid dues to the club or not. And, what if they wanted better equipment than the owner had, but couldn't afford (because most of his patrons aren't paying)? Well, they could sue him to force him to buy new equipment!"


That's a ridiculous comparison...everyone chooses where to work based on many variables, including the offer of compensation from the employer....the fact that Unions have designed their model to cover everyone in the workplace was obviously done to force workers into joining the union, so the problem seems to be with the model. Workers should absolutely have the right to choose whether they want to be in a union or not...the same goes for the Union, they should be able to only provide benefits to those who are members.

Denny Crane!

The law is the right-wing Taft-Hartley act, passed in 1947. The unions did NOT set this law up, the anti-union people did. Just like a rightie to set something like this up and blame the unions, as if they set it up that way!

Hilarious!

And suddenly you're so concerned about worker choice. What if you want to wear shorts and flip-flops to work, but the job says you're required to wear a uniform?

Are you concerned about worker choice NOW?

Workers can choose whether to be in a union NOW. They are not required to work anywhere. They can choose a non-union job.

Yep, people WANT those union jobs, because they pay better than non-union. It's because of the worker-funded negotiations. They want something, but don't want to pay for it.

Just like a conservative.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:21 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:35 pm
Posts: 1364
Location: Dallas, Texas
The law is the right-wing Taft-Hartley act, passed in 1947. The unions did NOT set this law up, the anti-union people did. Just like a rightie to set something like this up and blame the unions, as if they set it up that way!

Hilarious!

And suddenly you're so concerned about worker choice. What if you want to wear shorts and flip-flops to work, but the job says you're required to wear a uniform?

Are you concerned about worker choice NOW?

Workers can choose whether to be in a union NOW. They are not required to work anywhere. They can choose a non-union job.

Yep, people WANT those union jobs, because they pay better than non-union. It's because of the worker-funded negotiations. They want something, but don't want to pay for it.

Just like a conservative.

GoU

"And suddenly you're so concerned about worker choice. What if you want to wear shorts and flip-flops to work, but the job says you're required to wear a uniform?"
Another comically, stupid reference...as you're trying to equate being forced to wear a uniform with being forced to pay for a union membership whether one wants to be in the union or not. As someone who claims to support workers, why do you choose to limit their choices?

Denny Crane!

_________________

"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
President Barack Obama


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:24 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
"And suddenly you're so concerned about worker choice. What if you want to wear shorts and flip-flops to work, but the job says you're required to wear a uniform?"
Another comically, stupid reference...as you're trying to equate being forced to wear a uniform with being forced to pay for a union membership whether one wants to be in the union or not. As someone who claims to support workers, why do you choose to limit their choices?

Denny Crane!

They have their choice. I believe in that choice. They can choose whether or not to work in a union bargaining unit. It's a condition of work. If they don't want to work there, they have the choice not to. Again, it's an agreement between the company and union. If the company agrees, what is your problem?

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:59 pm 
Offline
Policy Wonk
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:35 pm
Posts: 1364
Location: Dallas, Texas
They have their choice. I believe in that choice. They can choose whether or not to work in a union bargaining unit. It's a condition of work. If they don't want to work there, they have the choice not to. Again, it's an agreement between the company and union. If the company agrees, what is your problem?

GoU

If the company agrees, I've got no problem with it at all.....again, it's all about choice....everyone should have one....IMO, nobody should have to join a union if they dont want to....companies shouldnt have to only hire union members if they dont want to...and workers should not get union benefits if they dont belong to a union.

Denny Crane!

_________________

"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn’t happened yet. It won’t happen in the future."
President Barack Obama


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:07 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
If the company agrees, I've got no problem with it at all.....again, it's all about choice....everyone should have one....IMO, nobody should have to join a union if they dont want to....companies shouldnt have to only hire union members if they dont want to...and workers should not get union benefits if they dont belong to a union.

Denny Crane!

Well, you have your way on two of three. NO ONE IN AMERICA IS EVER FORCED TO JOIN A UNION. A company has to agree and sign a negotiated contract to have a union shop.

But unions are forced to represent people who pay no dues, often to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, and non-members get the same benefits and protections as union members, who pay their way.

That's the life that Republicans want us to have.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:09 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 2:01 pm
Posts: 6402
Location: Maine U.S.A
How about that? Another politician lied his way into office. He'll be well compensated for when his term is done.

_________________
Lest we forget
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
I heard on the news today that Indiana has added 12,000 jobs since becoming a right to work state. Michigan now has positioned itself in a much better place when it comes to competing for new jobs.
Yes. it will cost the GOP many votes and many offices as organized labor pumps money into buying elections. It's nice to know that the current Michigan GOP leadership thought more of getting new jobs to Michigan than they did of keeping their own elected postitions.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:12 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36371
Oklahoma got NO new jobs from right to work. Do you have proof that one job came from RTW?

Or was it from the improving economy?

Lets be clear: RTW does NOT create jobs.

GoU


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:38 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 17358
If Unions would quit being a LW Political organization that the majority of workers oppose politcally. If Unions would get back to what they were suppose to be, a voice for the worker in the workplace. It wouldnt matter if all 50 states were RTW or not. Workers would be demanding to be Union.
How do you expect to recruit a person who has conservative beliefs, or is a Born Again style Christian, or is pro life, or is even middle of the road like me, to join and support any organization that supports the furthest left of the left politically?
You can't which is why Unions are dying instead of growing.
Because they have become just another political organization their political views are turning off more peoplke than it turns on.

_________________
"my choice is for people like you to be deported -Ike Bana 5/13/18

"within weeks of being rid of the likes of you, rid of every fucking one of you,we would begin to see what kind of country this ought to be" Ike Bana 6/14/18


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group