What's new
By:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy to Retire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bulletproof said:
I've understood your point this whole time.
Click to expand...

Yep, I believe you did. And then proceeded to put a whole bunch of words into my mouth, making further discussion impossible.

I'm fine with allowing unions/workers to dissociate vs the formerly required 2-way interactions (dues/representation). This recent ruling leaves us at an ugly halfway point imo(representation required/nothing in return).
 
Last edited:
The Thriller said:
One thing that we haven’t even touched on, unions as a lobbying force in politics. If unions have less money now (which is obviously going to happen) how are they supposed to offset the corporate dollars that are flooding our political system?
Click to expand...

Aaaand this is why the SCOTUS ruled the way they did.

If you didn’t have me on ignore you would’ve seen that I did mention it.
 
♪alt13 said:
Yeah they could have repealed the ACS too but they couldn't hold Senate Republicans together so...

52 Republican Senators
McCain probably won't vote (dying and stuff) That means 2 Republicans can block a nominee.
Click to expand...

Democrats like Manchin will vote to approve. Maybe Tester. Gotta get re-elected.

Plus Pence can vote if needed. It will get pushed through, because of Harry Reid.
 
I think where all of you have missed the point, or are willingly ignoring it, is that the union ruling was a first amendment issue.

90% of Union political money went to the Democrat Party. If that was reversed, are we honestly going to sit here and say Thriller (and people like him) wouldn’t have a huge issue with that? That if he wasn’t part of a union, but still had to pay his dues, and that money went to support republicans, that he wouldn’t take huge issue with that? Cause I’ve been reading that dude for years, and he literally loathes the Republican Party.

Oh, and btw, when you have evidence of treating people differently because of how they identify...whether it be gender, color, political party, dressing style, etc...that is an example of bigotry. Some are obviously more extreme than others, there are levels, but that’s what the doggone word means. But white men can’t use it?! Bullpoop (damn filter).
 
Eminence said:
Yep, I believe you did. And then proceeded to put a whole bunch of words into my mouth, making further discussion impossible.

I'm fine with allowing unions/workers to dissociate vs the formerly required 2-way interactions (dues/representation). This recent ruling leaves us at an ugly halfway point imo(representation required/nothing in return).
Click to expand...
I put zero words in your mouth.
 
Bulletproof said:
I completely understand what you're saying, I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying.

People who work in job covered by a collective bargaining agreement (aka, a union) are bound to that union even if they would prefer there be no union in their workplace. Even if they wish they could negotiate directly with management and deal with other issues on an individual basis.

I think you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union. Working in a union workplace and being represented by an incompetent union, I can tell you that I would have better pay, better shift flexibility and a better work/life balance if my garbage *** union wasn't there.

My union represents primarily unskilled labor. I am in a skilled labor field that has a pretty significant shortage of skilled people qualified to work with the automated systems that are becoming more and more common every day. The people in my field make up a very small portion of the overall hourly workforce at my workplace. The union is all but hostile to us. When they find out the managers are working with our schedules for the benefit of everyone and the harm of no one they shut that **** down. When market forces should drive our wages up they actually refused to allow the company to increase just our wages on the last contract, demanding that entry level inexperienced forklift drivers needed to have a pay increase if the mechanics were going to get a pay increase. When the company refused to give the forklift drivers a pay increase, the union said then they wouldn't agree to mechanics getting a pay increase. There were no strings attached, the company just wanted to adjust our wages to be competitive so that they could attract employees. I've worked at the place I'm at for about five years and they have never had full staff in my department.

I've also worked in non-union places and the work environment was better. The pay was just as good. Raises were better. Benefits were better. There was more flexibility.

I don't want my stupid *** union to represent me. I want them to go away.
Click to expand...
@Eminence

The closest I come to "putting words in your mouth" is where I say "I think you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union." That word I use there, "think" means that I have the impression that you're assuming it is better for all employees to be represented by a union. It doesn't mean I know you think that. It means that my following comments are a response based on that assumption. It allows you to clarify any confusion I have about what you're saying because I've made explicitly clear what impressions I've gotten from your comments. It is the opposite of me putting words in your mouth.
 
Eminence said:
Shoulda thought harder I guess.
Click to expand...
I used to word "think" to indicate lack of complete assuredness. Indicating that I was making an assumption based on the information in front of me. Now it's up to you to correct me if my assumption was wrong. I didn't do anything to shut down this conversation. You have by crying about me putting words in your mouth when no such thing happened.

Have a nice day...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page
Back
Top