UAW flattened by a Volkswagen

Loading

vw logo

Having destroyed Detroit, the United Auto Workers union is desperate to infect foreign auto manufacturing plants in the South. It finally managed to force a vote on unionization in Chattanooga and the UAW hit a pot hole.

Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tenn., have rejected the United Auto Workers, shooting down the union’s hopes of securing a foothold at a foreign-owned auto plant in the South.

The vote was 712 to 626, said the UAW, which blamed the loss on “politicians and outside special interest groups.”

The vote, announced late Friday night after three days of balloting, is a devastating loss for the UAW, whose membership has plummeted from a high of 1.5 million in 1979 to around 400,000 today. Outgoing UAW President Bob King had staked his legacy on organizing a Southern auto plant for the first time.

But the decision is a triumph for Tennessee Republicans like Sen. Bob Corker, who lured Volkswagen to Chattanooga as mayor in the early 2000s. Corker and other Republicans warned workers that the UAW’s presence would irreparably harm the plant, and in recent days he claimed — with little evidence — that Volkswagen would choose not to expand the plant if workers unionized.

“Needless to say, I am thrilled for the employees at Volkswagen and for our community and its future,” Corker said in a brief statement Friday night.

Union leaders, who poured millions of outside union dollars into a failed effort to unseat Scott Walker in Wisconsin, whined about outside money.

In a statement, the UAW blamed the conservative groups and Tennessee Republicans for their stinging defeat, with UAW Region 8 Director Gary Casteel saying that “politically motivated third parties threatened the economic future of this facility and the opportunity for workers to create a successful operating model that would grow jobs in Tennessee.”
“While we’re outraged by politicians and outside special interest groups interfering with the basic legal right of workers to form a union, we’re proud that these workers were brave and stood up to the tremendous pressure from outside,” UAW Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Williams said. “We hope this will start a larger discussion about workers’ right to organize.”

It was also a rebuke for Barack Obama who had weighed in on the vote.

But let’s be honest about unions. Unions used to exist for workers’ benefits. Now they exist solely as a means to funnel workers’ wages into the pockets of democrats and democrat issues. Liberals whine a lot about the influence of the Koch brothers, but the Koch’s are pikers in contrast to the money spent by liberals and unions. From Open Secrets:

candidates or outside spending groups and PACs not affiliated with either party.
Rank Organization Total ’89-’12 Dem % Repub % Tilt
1 ActBlue $97,192,340 99% 0%                                      
2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $60,667,379 81% 1%                   
3 AT&T Inc $56,449,317 41% 57%
4 National Education Assn $53,594,488 61% 4%
5 National Assn of Realtors $51,207,902 44% 47%
6 Goldman Sachs $44,847,951 53% 44%
7 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $44,478,789 92% 1%                                      
8 United Auto Workers $41,667,858 71% 0%                   
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union $39,260,371 74% 9%                   
10 Service Employees International Union $38,395,690 84% 2%                   
11 Laborers Union $37,494,010 85% 7%                   
12 American Federation of Teachers $36,713,325 89% 0%                   
13 Communications Workers of America $36,188,135 86% 0%                   
14 Teamsters Union $36,123,209 88% 5%                   
15 JPMorgan Chase & Co $34,527,277 48% 51%
16 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $33,756,550 86% 0%                   
17 United Parcel Service $32,214,128 35% 64%
18 Citigroup Inc $32,198,122 48% 50%
19 National Auto Dealers Assn $31,818,910 31% 68%
20 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $31,313,097 98% 1%                                      
21 EMILY’s List $31,267,654 98% 0%                                      
22 American Bankers Assn $31,135,202 36% 63%
23 AFL-CIO $30,938,977 61% 3%
24 American Medical Assn $29,990,879 40% 59%
25 Microsoft Corp $29,245,015 55% 43%
26 National Beer Wholesalers Assn $28,976,510 35% 64%
27 Blue Cross/Blue Shield $28,491,678 36% 63%
28 General Electric $27,741,628 47% 51%
29 National Assn of Home Builders $27,509,880 34% 65%
30 Lockheed Martin $27,246,173 42% 57%
31 Bank of America $26,822,749 41% 57%
32 National Assn of Letter Carriers $26,106,359 84% 9%                   
33 Morgan Stanley $26,074,770 42% 56%
34 Verizon Communications $25,490,499 40% 59%
35 Deloitte LLP $24,979,333 35% 63%
36 Time Warner $24,463,922 72% 25%                   
37 Newsweb Corp $24,387,371 41% 0%
38 Credit Union National Assn $24,056,155 47% 51%
39 Plumbers & Pipefitters Union $23,886,248 85% 4%                   
40 Altria Group $23,750,298 28% 70%                   
41 Ernst & Young $23,114,243 42% 57%
42 Operating Engineers Union $23,036,848 82% 14%                   
43 International Assn of Fire Fighters $22,963,260 79% 16%                   
44 American Hospital Assn $22,909,326 52% 46%
45 PricewaterhouseCoopers $22,461,596 35% 64%
46 Sheet Metal Workers Union $22,372,978 95% 2%                                      
47 American Dental Assn $21,791,508 44% 54%
48 Boeing Co $21,502,737 46% 52%
49 UBS AG $21,354,742 40% 58%
50 Comcast Corp $20,603,390 57% 42%
51 AFLAC Inc $19,822,809 43% 56%
52 National Rifle Assn $19,771,191 17% 82%                   
53 Pfizer Inc $19,699,869 35% 64%
54 Northrop Grumman $19,633,964 42% 57%
55 Union Pacific Corp $19,617,968 27% 72%                   
56 Air Line Pilots Assn $19,538,047 83% 16%                   
57 Honeywell International $19,447,557 44% 54%
58 Natl Assn/Insurance & Financial Advisors $19,305,624 41% 58%
59 Koch Industries                         $18,083,948 8% 90%                                      
60 American Postal Workers Union $17,957,308 86% 2%                   
61 American Assn for Justice $17,581,358 80% 3%                   
62 FedEx Corp $17,506,083 39% 60%
63 Ironworkers Union $17,386,345 92% 6%                                      
64 Club for Growth                         $17,271,352 0% 95%                                      
65 Credit Suisse Group $17,191,340 41% 57%
66 United Transportation Union $17,096,750 87% 11%                   
67 New York Life Insurance $16,898,487 49% 50%
68 Raytheon Co                             $16,864,289 44% 55%
69 National Rural Electric Cooperative Assn $16,552,363 47% 52%
70 General Dynamics $16,549,202 46% 53%
71 Akin, Gump et al                        $16,463,510 61% 37%
72 United Steelworkers $16,426,444 99% 0%                                      
73 American Institute of CPAs $15,952,635 41% 58%
74 National Air Traffic Controllers Assn $15,883,050 77% 20%                   
75 Chevron $15,826,864 19% 64%
76 Anheuser-Busch $15,612,613 48% 51%
77 Reynolds American $15,574,198 22% 77%                   
78 Exxon Mobil $15,220,537 13% 85%                   
79 KPMG LLP                       $15,112,328 34% 65%
80 National Cable & Telecommunications Assn $15,048,560 47% 51%
81 DLA Piper $14,902,117 68% 31%
82 Merrill Lynch $14,865,217 37% 62%
83 Wal-Mart Stores $14,851,004 32% 67%
84 GlaxoSmithKline $14,625,493 30% 69%
85 CSX Corp $14,118,661 34% 65%
86 Walt Disney Co $14,104,107 68% 30%
87 News Corp $13,917,083 58% 41%
88 American Financial Group $13,910,355 15% 73%                   
89 Indep Insurance Agents & Brokers/America $13,731,200 34% 64%
90 American Health Care Assn               $13,727,858 51% 48%
91 Wells Fargo $13,639,116 36% 61%
92 Associated Builders & Contractors       $13,577,082 1% 98%                                      
93 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance     $13,565,554 38% 60%
94 University of California                $13,552,056 89% 9%                   
95 American Crystal Sugar $13,309,209 61% 37%
96 WPP Group $13,257,197 53% 45%
97 American Society of Anesthesiologists $13,166,537 41% 58%
98 Prudential Financial $13,051,316 49% 50%
99 Southern Co $12,973,439 29% 70%                   
100 National Restaurant Assn $12,605,181 16% 83%                   
101 Securities Industry & Financial Mkt Assn $12,438,248 40% 59%
102 Human Rights Campaign $12,148,422 89% 8%                   
103 MetLife Inc $12,038,047 51% 47%
104 American Optometric Assn                $12,034,433 57% 42%
105 Home Depot $11,900,495 25% 74%                   
106 American Academy of Ophthalmology $11,895,708 50% 49%
107 Natl Active & Retired Fed Employees Assn $11,802,200 78% 21%                   
108 Saban Capital Group                     $11,683,172 89% 0%                   
109 Eli Lilly & Co $11,651,455 31% 67%
110 United Technologies $11,577,894 45% 52%
111 General Motors $11,281,497 38% 60%
112 Associated General Contractors $11,198,897 14% 85%                   
113 Painters & Allied Trades Union $11,081,080 85% 12%                   
114 National Assn of Broadcasters $11,051,822 44% 55%
115 American Maritime Officers $11,019,831 46% 53%
116 UST Inc $10,930,093 22% 77%                   
117 Ford Motor Co                           $10,739,089 38% 60%
118 Skadden, Arps et al $10,700,094 77% 22%                   
119 BellSouth Corp $10,680,784 43% 56%
120 AIG $10,548,621 49% 50%
121 Seafarers International Union $10,449,415 83% 15%                   
122 Exelon Corp $10,448,670 43% 56%
123 National Cmte to Preserve Social Security & Medicare $10,391,306 82% 17%                   
124 Independent Community Bankers of America $10,367,285 42% 57%
125 Amway/Alticor Inc $10,312,313 0% 97%                                      
126 Freddie Mac $10,294,709 43% 56%
127 MBNA Corp $10,282,913 16% 83%                   
128 Patton Boggs LLP                        $10,134,606 71% 27%                   
129 American Airlines $10,071,131 43% 55%
130 American Trucking Assns                 $9,975,648 27% 72%                   
131 American Physical Therapy Assn          $9,795,983 49% 50%
132 Lehman Brothers $9,729,764 52% 46%
133 Blackstone Group                        $9,658,975 46% 51%
134 National Fedn of Independent Business   $9,616,283 6% 93%                                      
135 Greenberg Traurig LLP $9,546,903 62% 37%
136 Transport Workers Union                 $9,531,899 95% 4%                                      
137 American Council of Life Insurers $9,454,728 38% 61%
138 Amalgamated Transit Union               $9,453,918 93% 6%                                      
139 Harvard University                      $9,436,590 87% 12%                   
140 Archer Daniels Midland $9,394,067 42% 57%
141 Aircraft Owners & Pilots Assn $9,337,413 43% 56%
142 Fannie Mae                              $9,140,977 53% 46%
143 National Rural Letter Carriers Assn     $9,021,100 71% 28%                   
144 Wachovia Corp $8,575,944 30% 69%
145 National Cmte for an Effective Congress $8,447,690 99% 0%                                      
146 Interpublic Group $8,286,183 66% 32%
147 Marine Engineers Beneficial Assn $8,155,379 73% 25%                   
148 Bristol-Myers Squibb $7,926,699 23% 76%                   
149 MCI Inc $7,659,226 45% 54%
150 Bear Stearns                            $7,280,973 55% 43%
151 BP $6,843,520 30% 69%
152 Enron Corp $6,544,528 28% 71%                   
153 Andersen $6,267,045 37% 62%
154 Vivendi $6,037,717 60% 33%
155 MGM Resorts International $5,831,055 45% 47%
156 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp $5,089,791 39% 60%

As you can see, the Koch brothers are a paltry #59.  Liberals dominate political donations. They’ll just have to do with a little less now.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The dishonesty of the UAW is pathetic.
In January they falsely equated union organizing efforts at Nissan’s Canton plant with the civil rights struggle in Mississippi in the 1950s and 1960s.
What the UAW really is is a parasite that has already killed its hosts in Detroit and is looking for new ones in the South.
There have been no actual civil rights shortcomings by any of the South’s new auto companies.
The vote was 712 to 626 at the VW plant.
If that means there are a total of 1,338 well-paid workers in Chattanooga, Tenn., a UAW win would not have added one more.
It would merely mean a leech was sucking off those workers.

Workers starting to realize that the snake oil policies of the left are very bad for their health and the UAW thugs couldn’t win a fair election. Then the union crybabies complain (with absolutely ZERO shame) about third party money being spent to influence the vote. Tell me again why unions spend so much on various political campaigns, if not to influence the vote? Tell me – when unions spend vastly larger sums of money (money taken from union worker via dues and spent on what the UNION thugs decide, not necessarily what the worker providing the money decides) than the Koch brothers (who incidentally are spending their OWN money) how is it that union political spending is considered good, while the Koch’s are the epitome of evil? What is the ethical, legal or reasonable difference for which leftists claim Koch=bad, union thugs=good?

Between this and the results of the recent San Deigo mayoral race, and all the at risk dem senators putting out commercials condemning obamacare, I really hope to enjoy the evening of the first Tuesday this coming November.

Thanks DrJohn for adding a link to Politisite. We appreciate it! Love you guys! My writers have you on their daily read list!

627 suckers voted to have the union thugs take their hard earned money and spend it on lavish salaries for the goon bosses. That’s 46+ % of the workforce who believed the union BS. A defeat, but not a resounding defeat, the goons will be back.

You don’t provide a method to EMail this article to friends?

Why Unions shouldn’t be able to contribute to candidate’s supporting their agenda yet corporate funding is a different story is unclear. But of course, this is a Dr John screed so we have to take it with a couple pounds of salt.

GOP leaders may very well be in violation. Regardless when Gov. Bill Haslam and Sen. Bob Corker threatens the Union friendly company with retribution if the vote succeeds, that does raise some eyebrows. State Sen. Bo Watson of Chattanooga wrote last week:

“Volkswagen has promoted a campaign that has been unfair, unbalanced and, quite frankly, un-American in the traditions of American labor campaigns …. Should the workers choose to be represented by the United Auto Workers, then I believe additional incentives for expansion will have a very tough time passing the Tennessee Senate.”

Talk about government intrusion and interfering with the free market!

Regardless, just got off the phone from the Teamsters inviting me to Louisville on Feb 25 too attend the Bill Clinton stumping for Alison Grimes rally. They tell me the United Auto Workers are looking at unfair labor practices as a result of TN GOP overreach which could possibly award them a do-over.

Good thing we had Harry Reid to redo the filibuster rules in order to seat appointees at the NLRB table.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Regardless, just got off the phone from the Teamsters inviting me to Louisville on Feb 25 too attend the Bill Clinton stumping for Alison Grimes rally.

Grimes is a nice looking woman. I hope her staff has the intellect to keep her from being alone with the serial womanizer, Bill Clinton.

They tell me the United Auto Workers are looking at unfair labor practices as a result of TN GOP overreach which could possibly award them a do-over.

Well, I’m sure they’re upset. After all, that cancerous leech killed their host in Michigan, they need new blood.

Union leaders, who poured millions of outside union dollars into a failed effort to unseat Scott Walker in Wisconsin, whined about outside money.

Scott Walker’s recall election donations, totaling $30.5 million, exceeded those of his opponent 8 to 1. Of the 14 members of the Forbes billionaire list that helped buy Scott Walker his win, 13 are from outside the state of Wisconsin.

Republican politicians represent big money special interests. Unions represent average working men and women. While that’s an oversimplification, it’s fundamentally accurate.

@retire05, #7:

Well, I’m sure they’re upset. After all, that cancerous leech killed their host in Michigan, they need new blood.

What happened to Detroit was that millions of high-paying American manufacturing jobs were exported overseas to maximize corporate profits. A lot of those jobs were formerly concentrated in such cities. Corporations were even given tax incentives that accelerated the process.

High worker wages result in increased state, local, and federal tax revenues. They also result in increased consumer spending, which directly supports businesses and a healthy local, state, and national economy. One would think this would be simple and obvious enough for anyone of average intelligence to grasp.

@Greg: helped buy Scott Walker his win

????
The real pisser for Unions and liberals in that vote was that they could only vote once (or twice at most.)
If they’d been allowed to vote early and more often Scott Walker would not be gov. today.
It is OBVIOUS when we see that over 50% of all teachers union members have quit paying dues now that they are allowed to teach without dues being pulled out, that ”average working men and women,” preferred Walker.
Non-teachers, too…..
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304821304577436462413999718.html

Wisconsin membership in the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees—the state’s second-largest public-sector union after the National Education Association, which represents teachers—fell to 28,745 in February from 62,818 in March 2011, according to a person who has viewed Afscme’s figures.

The writing is on the wall, Greg.
Originally it was, ”mene, mene, tekel pharsin,” which literally means, ”you have been weighed in the balance and found wanting.”

Scott Walker remained governor because he had 8 times the money to spend on media ads. If there’s any writing on the wall, it’s surely a warning about what happens when money is allowed to be used without restraint to buy more power—which in turn allows the powerful to accumulate more money. This becomes an escalating vicious cycle that generally doesn’t end well for anyone.

I knew 7 men who worked at one of the car plants in Delaware. 7 of those 7 were severe alcoholics and/or drug abusers. They were protected by the union. They were being paid high wages to be drunk or to go to rehab multiple times. People ask why I refuse to buy American cars. This is my reason. How do I put my life and my families lives in the hands of these men? Why weren’t they fired? Why were they protected by the union? These men were dangerous at home and on the job. Yet people still want to have unions who protect people like this. I am happy the union was not able to get in to VW and I hope more companies kick these thugs out.

There’s a wonderful republican message, sure to benefit the economy: American cars are built by alcoholics and drug addicts.

@Elizabeth: Well, the teacher’s union is supporting sexual abuse of minors by teachers. Why would not the UAW support drunks and druggies if they pay dues. The unions only want the money.

Sad but true Greg. Maybe if these people were fired and not protected by the union it wouldn’t be a fact. I would love to support American workers but when I come up against odds like 7 out of 7 Im not willing to put my life on the line to support the hundreds of other employees. Make people responsible for their own actions and we would all be better off.

@Elizabeth, #15:

Toyota ordered dealers to stop selling 6 of their most popular American models last month, owing to a fire risk. Last year they recalled 2.5 million sold in the United States for the same reason.

Safety risks involving U.S. cars have most often resulted from design defects and corporate-level cover-ups. Remember the exploding Ford pickups with the saddlebag gas tanks? What about the body count of police officers killed when their Crown Victoria squad cars exploded after being rear-ended? Ford recalled 195,000 Crown Victoria police cars as safety hazards just a few days ago. After ignoring a known safety hazard for years. If your life is at risk in an automobile, it probably isn’t because of a union assembly worker.

Maybe 7 out of 7 auto industry executives are making corporate decisions drunk.

@Greg:
Autos and trucks surely have the ability to be deadly weapons.
But just today BART (the Bay Area Rapid Transit system) had to warn all riders that they had likely been exposed to measles.
Some nice liberal went abroad, no vaccines, got exposed to measles, caught it, came home and while pre-symptomatic, rode all over the Berkeley area.
Measles kills, too.
At least with your car/truck most of the time you can drive defensibly enough most of the time.

@Greg:

Your logic fails in that you assume people have more money to spend how they wish when their wages go up, as if the tax bite doesn’t increase with tbe increased wages, and that the cost of consumer goods doesn’t go up with inc reased business taxes, the cost of increased regulation, and the increased cost of labor.

Greg, sure the cancerous leech is looking for a new host. The UAW used to have 1.6 million members. Now it is down to 600,000 and some odd change. And yes, the union caused the demise of Detroit.

You can find, on the Wayback machine, I’m sure, the UAW-GM contract before GM went belly up. WTH? The workers got off not only on Election Day, but the day before so they could GOTV. And they were paid for it. If you put on the wheel of a GM vehicle, and the guy next to you tightens the lug nuts, and you were out sick for a day, the company had to bring in someone who was “qualified” to put on wheels, and not a guy could tighten lug nuts.

No company can continue paying workers a year’s wages when they only work an approximate 9 months out of the year. But the union had one mindset; get more and more when times were good and demand more and more when times were bad.

And while the unions complain about low wages of the rank and file, the big wigs don’t seem to have that problem:

Richard Trumka, Pres. AFL-CIA $588,218.00 plus benefits per year
AFC-CIA VP $301.932.00 plus benefits per year

Gerald NcEntee, President AFSCME $1,121,988.00 plus benefits per year
Director of Retirees, AFSCME $432,705.00 plus benefits per year

Rhonda Weingarten, Pres. Teacher’s Unions (AFT) $556,981.00 plus benefits per year.

If they are so concerned about the wages of the rank and file they claim to support, perhaps they should take less of the rank and file’s monthly union dues to put into their own bank accounts.

@retire05, #19:

Greg, sure the cancerous leech is looking for a new host. The UAW used to have 1.6 million members. Now it is down to 600,000 and some odd change. And yes, the union caused the demise of Detroit.

The percentage of U.S. employees represented by unions is down to 11.3 percent of the workforce. That’s a 97-year low. Yet you make the totally nonsensical claim that unions are somehow the reason that the lot of American workers and the American middle class has declined. If your claim were true, the exact opposite would have happened.

The historical fact is that the rise of the American middle class and American working class, and the days of their greatest prosperity, corresponded with the rise of unions, which improved their lot in every way. As union representation has declined, so has the lot of the average American working family—not to mention the lot of the local businesses that workers making good wages once patronized.

If you want to see this effect clearly displayed on a graph, here’s a very good one to examine. It displays two data sets on one graph, for the years from 1967 to 2012: the percentage of working people that are unionized, and the middle class’s percentage of the nation’s total aggregate yearly income. Could the relationship between two things be more obvious?

So, with both worker productivity and nation’s GDP trending upward over the same period, where have the gains been going?

To the same people who have been getting the most benefit of the tax breaks. To the people that the GOP actually represents. The entire system has been distorted to work to their advantage, at the expense of everyone else. They still want more. And they’ll tell any lie that’s necessary to get it.

They hate unions, because unions get in the way of that. They hate social programs, because social programs divert money from their own pockets. They hate the poor, because the poor aren’t useful. And although they praise the work ethic, they’re not actually the ones who do the work. They live off of the creativity and labors of others. Some of them do little more than gamble with other people’s money. They simply move on to the next game if the current one goes bad. They’re admired for what they accumulate, and—provided their shareholders do well—any damage they do to the people who do the work of the world is ignored.

Anyone who notices any of this and mentions it is a socialist or a communist.

@retire05, #19:

And while the unions complain about low wages of the rank and file, the big wigs don’t seem to have that problem…

Yet there’s little criticism of the annual compensation packages of the CEOs heading the industries some of those union employees work for, or about the CEO-to-hourly-worker compensation ratios.

Look at the topmost on this list. J. C. Penny isn’t exactly going like gangbusters these days. And yet the CEO pay and benefits for a single year totals $53.3 million? Nothing to criticize there, surely. It’s not as if they were administering a huge national union. (J. C. Penny, by the way, isn’t a unionized workplace. Sales associates average $8.51 per hour.)

Greg what union do you or have you belonged to?

Unions have changed over the years and not for the good of the worker. You appear to be behind the times in this regard.

I suggest a good read is the book Savage Factory. It exposes both union and management in the auto industry. It’s based during a critical time auto production history.

One last question. Greg is your last name Pelosi? Your words/thoughts reveal a family resemblance.

I love it when people like Greg tell people like myself who live in Wisconsin “how it is” regarding Gov. Walker….
More than likely Greg was not here during the protest and recall events and possibly has never ever been to our state but he can certainly tell us everything that is wrong…

@Greg:

They hate unions, because unions get in the way of that. They hate social programs, because social programs divert money from their own pockets. They hate the poor, because the poor aren’t useful. And although they praise the work ethic, they’re not actually the ones who do the work. They live off of the creativity and labors of others. Some of them do little more than gamble with other people’s money. They simply move on to the next game if the current one goes bad. They’re admired for what they accumulate, and—provided their shareholders do well—any damage they do to the people who do the work of the world is ignored.

Your jaded view of those who have reached some fair amount of financial success is mind boggling. Not withstanding the fact that it is pure Marxist, it is also unrealistic. To hear you tell it, no one who has wealth ever earned it. The wealthy just got that way because they sit around trying to figure out ways to exploit others, or so you think. Forget the Bill Gates, Michael Dells, Henry Fords, Thomas Edisons, and all the others who started a small business with the ideas from their own minds and a few coins from their own pockets. Forget the Mark Cubans who once told an interviewer that he never took a vacation, or even dated, for a decade because he was totally focused on building his business. Your Scrooge McDuck vision of those who have become successful is just as cartoonish as any early Disney production.

Hate social programs? You mean allowing the IRS to steal the money from one man’s pocket to put into another, undeserving, man’s pocket? Hate the poor? After you define your definition of “poor”, then explain to me what causes someone to be poor in America. You Socialists are never interested in causation, only effect. Unless someone is so mentally retarded, or so physically handicapped that they are totally immobile, there is no reason for anyone in the U.S. to be actually “poor.” Even so, the “poor” in the United States are not really poor, are they, when their quality of life is actually better than the middle class in any European Union nation. The poor, Greggie, don’t own cars. They don’t own television sets, especially large, flat screen televisions, they don’t own Jordan Nikes or microwaves, or houses or cell phones. What the majority of the “poor” in this nation does do is make decisions about education, drugs, marriage, children and ambition that limits their market value in the work force, all the while expecting others who made better, and wiser, decisions to support their folly. There is the root of the “entitlement” segment of our nation.

Compare that with your Pollyanna perception of the modern day unions. Yes, at one time, unions served a purpose. But they teamed up with politicians and that partnership was the very thing that created their demise. Unions fought for work-place safety, fair wages, limited hours, time and a half for overtime, elimination of child labor, the five day work week. And then, along came FDR who implemented all those things by law. The unions were no longer serving the need to fight for those things that were now federal labor laws and they had just become moot. There was no place for the unions to go except to the headquarters of the Democratic Party where they became nothing more than an extension of that party.

You assume that company managers are stupid and greedy. Clearly, you have never run a business. A good worker, willing to give their labor in exchange for a fair wage, is a jewel. Anyone who has ever managed people in a work place environment understands that. The slacker is simply a drain on other workers. But unions were no longer looking out for the every man, they had become political action committees looking to increase the power of the union big wigs. That was the very reason that FDR did not believe that federal workers should be allowed to unionize.

Perhaps the workers at the VW plant in Tennessee are able to do simple math. Their entry level salary is almost $20.00 an hour while their union counterparts at GM in Detroit have an entry level salary of $15.50 an hour. That’s over $9,000/yr. difference. They live in a RTW state where they can advance on their own merit, not held back due to some union contract that forces them to give part of their wage to a union big wig who cares naught about them.

At one point in our history it was company goons beating up workers that wanted to unionize for all those factors I listed above (i.e. safety, five day work week, etc), now it is unions who are beating up on companies demanding more and more until they put companies, like Hostess, out of business. How did that work out? All those union workers, being prodded by union officials who had nothing to lose, cost those workers their jobs while the union big wig kept theirs. And what about the New York teacher’s Rubber Rooms?

http://nypost.com/2013/01/27/one-year-on-the-job-13-years-in-rubber-room-earns-perv-teacher-1m/

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/08/31/090831fa_fact_brill

Oh, yeah, they are called something else now (as if changing the name of a program makes it totally different) but they still exist. Teachers, who have molested children, cannot be fired because of union demands. Union big wigs protecting their salaries while they turn their back on children. What a glowing endorsement that is.

Unions have outlived their usefulness. All their goals of fair labor has been met by federal law. What purpose do they serve now other than being a PAC for the Democratic Party? Or are you still under the misguided assumption that unions can provide that Marxist utopian system of egalitarianism? Name me one nation where it has been tried that it has worked.

I am amazed at how someone can reach your age, Greggie, and still be so blinded by a dream of some Socialist utopia.

@Mully, #23:

Unions have changed over the years and not for the good of the worker. You appear to be behind the times in this regard.

Really? And what do you base that appraisal on, besides anecdotal “evidence” and propaganda shoveled out by media sources that would like to drive a stake through the heart of every remaining union in America? American workers represented by unions earn 27 percent more, on the average, than non-union employees; 87 percent of union workers have employee health benefits, while the number among non-union workers has dropped to 54 percent; union workers are 60 percent more likely to still have employee pension plans than non-union workers. Better wages, a greater likelihood of health insurance, a greater likelihood of having a pension plan—not to mention someone to stand up for workplace safety and worker rights… How else do we define what’s better for a working person?

@retire05, #25:

Your jaded view of those who have reached some fair amount of financial success is mind boggling.

That wasn’t a criticism of “those who have reached some fair amount of financial success.” It was a criticism of a certain sort of highly successful parasite that exists within and exploits the capitalist system. If you honestly believe they don’t exist and that they aren’t attempting to manipulate the American financial and political systems to their own advantage without regard for who gets hurt in the process, your level of naïveté has got to be totally off the chart.

I am amazed at how someone can reach your age, Greggie, and still be so blinded by a dream of some Socialist utopia.

You seem to confuse dreams of a “socialist utopia” with a desire for a fair and equitable economic system that focuses on the greatest good of the middle and working classes. Republicans seem to believe that wealth is a sign of merit. Their vision of the American Dream realized seems to focus primarily on special privilege and dollar signs. They seem to view poverty as a natural outcome of deficiencies of character.

@Greg:

That wasn’t a criticism of “those who have reached some fair amount of financial success.” It was a criticism of a certain sort of highly successful parasite that exists within and exploits the capitalist system.

And just who would those parasites be, Greggie? Name them. Name the CEOs that exploit American workers while they lounge on the golf course as often as they can? Oh, wait………………I know one. He just flew to California to get away from the cold and nasty weather in D.C.

And if a person is exploited by another, doesn’t the exploited person have to allow it to happen? Your mythical robber barons seem to exist only in your small brain.

You seem to confuse dreams of a “socialist utopia” with a desire for a fair and equitable economic system that focuses on the greatest good of the middle and working classes

Call it what you want (i.e. “fair and equitable economic system that focuses on the greatest good of the middle and working class”) but no matter what you call it, it is still MARXISM and the concept of egalitarianism. Tell me where it has ever worked and not caused the deaths of millions.

Republicans seem to believe that wealth is a sign of merit.

How so? Is the Democrat, Jay Rockefeller, rich because of merit? No, he is rich because his grandfather was exactly the kind of person you want to portray anyone who is not middle class as being. Yet, you are not demanding that the Democrats live by their own standards of wealth redistribution. Why doesn’t Jay Rockefeller give most of his money away and live like some guy that works on the power lines? Why are Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and Obama, all millionaires? At some point, didn’t they make enough money so that they should be required to give the bulk of it away to the great unwashed masses? Why are they keeping their money?

Their vision of the American Dream realized seems to focus primarily on special privilege and dollar signs. They seem to view poverty as a natural outcome of deficiencies of character.

How so? Where are your examples of that claim?

You are so indoctrinated I actually feel sorry for you. You don’t understand that conservatives admire hard work and ambition. You are too simple minded to understand that there is a difference between that and greed. You want examples of greed? Go to any public housing project in your area and you will see greed in its purest form. When a person expects others to take care of that, that is pure greed.

Of course, I don’t expect you to answer any of my questions. That’s not your purpose. Your purpose is to come to this blog and be the good little useful idiot for the promotion of Socialism/Marxism. The problem you have is that you’re a miserable failure at it.

@retire05, #28:

Yet, you are not demanding that the Democrats live by their own standards of wealth redistribution.

I’m not demanding that anyone live by some standard. I’m arguing that working people have every right to organize and to collectively seek a fair share of the wealth that their own labors and creativity produce. You seem to think that’s a form of robbery.

You don’t understand that conservatives admire hard work and ambition.

Pirates and thieves are perfectly capable of hard work and ambition. That doesn’t mean that their rewards are a reflection of what their activities contribute to the common good. Accumulating wealth isn’t necessarily synonymous with creating wealth. The CEO of Comcast is receiving total compensation in excess of $29 million per year. His innovation seems to have been to raise customer fees in excess of 5 percent per year in return for providing nothing more than what was provided during the previous year. No doubt you imagine he personally does something that is somehow worth $29.1 million. You don’t seem to recognize that thieves and pirates these days sometimes wear nice suits, work out of lavish offices, and have teams of lawyers that keep them arguably within the letter of the law. Unless, of course, they’re democrats, in which case it’s a foregone conclusion.

Of course, I don’t expect you to answer any of my questions. That’s not your purpose. Your purpose is to come to this blog and be the good little useful idiot for the promotion of Socialism/Marxism. The problem you have is that you’re a miserable failure at it.

My purpose is to state the obvious in the hope that people will realize how much of the opposing message is total nonsense.

Greg,
Do you even know what a CEO does?
The CEO must meeting the needs of employees, customers, investors, communities, and the law.
All at the same time.
Juggling cats is probably easier.
A CEO must have a successful strategy and vision for the company.
A CEO must build and maintain the team in the company, that means hiring AND firing.
it also means setting an example, being a motivator, resolving differences, keeping peace between the artistic types and the muscle types, and so on.
The CEO has to know when to start projects and if and when to pull the plug on one.

Not anyone can do all this, it takes a certain type.
And that type is pretty rare.
When a company finds a good one for their business, they have to do what they do 9pay him well) to keep him.
If he’s good he will be in high demand and they could lose him.

PS, when a company makes part of a CEO’s pay stock options, they and he are betting on his being successful in his job.

Greg:

I’m arguing that working people have every right to organize and to collectively seek a fair share of the wealth that their own labors and creativity produce.

Do you not realize that, when the UAW attempedt to organize the workers at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga the VW company ” agreed not to resist the organizing effort and gave the union access to the plant and its workers. If the union couldn’t win an election under those conditions, it is a powerful sign of how weak, indeed toxic, unions have become in recent years. If the UAW couldn’t win this election, it seems doubtful it can win any election.”
Only in the public sector is union membership increasing.
And right-to-work laws are spreading.
In 2012 both Indiana and even Michigan—the home of the UAW—became right-to-work states.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/02/16/the-uaws-waterloo/

The only area where unions have grown is in political power.
That’s because they can take your money and give it to whomsoever they please (usually Dems).
Unions are the single biggest source of funds for Democratic causes and candidates.
Where would they be without unions?
That’s what we all want to see.
LOL!

@Greg:

I’m arguing that working people have every right to organize and to collectively seek a fair share of the wealth that their own labors and creativity produce. You seem to think that’s a form of robbery.

That, Greggie, is pure, unadulterated Marxism in its most basic form. You, and no one else, has the right to made a claim against the wealth that any individual accumulates IF that individual has already paid your for your contribution.

When you take a job, it is a contract between you, and the employer. They offer you a job at a certain wage, paying you to do a certain task, and you have the right to accept, or deny that job. No one is forcing you to work for anyone, at least not here in the United States. If you don’t like the wages that are being offered, find a job that pays you what you seem to think you are worth.

What you just said was that if I build a house, but I hire you to paint my living room, when I sell that house, or the value of that house increases, I should give you part of that profit because you are entitled to it. No, Greggie, you were entitled only to that amount that you and I agreed upon for you to paint the living room.

How any one who uses simple logic can assume that they are entitled to a share in the profits of a company when they had limited involvement in that company, is beyond me.

By your standards, Obama should not have been able to keep the profit from his books because of these facts and the involvement of others:

were it not for the editor, the book would not have gone to the printer
were it not for the printer, the book would not have been printed
had the book not been printed, the warehouse man would not have been able to box the books up for shipping
were it not for the shipper, the books would have never been put on a truck, which also required the labor of the box maker and the laborer at the truck factory and the refinery worker who helped produce the gasoline to allow the truck to run
were it not for the trucker, the books would not have been put into book stores
were it not for the receiver at the book stores, the books would have never been unpacked and placed on the shelves
were it not for the sales clerk, the books, taken off the shelves by the customers, would not have left the store and the customers would not have been able to purchase the books and without the sale of the books, Obama would not have made a profit.

So by your standards, each one of those people whose labor contributed to the millions of dollars that Obama made in profit simply from his intellectual property, have a claim to the profits Obama made from his books, in spite of the fact that they had already negotiated a price for their labor before Obama made the millions of dollars in profit.

But the man who said that at some point in time, he thinks you have made enough money, didn’t seem to apply that to himself.

You do not have a right to my intellectual property, no matter how much I may profit from it. You have a right to the wage I agree to pay you, and that you agree to accept, for your labor that contributes to the success of my intellectual property. Bill Gates, a huge progressive, has not, in fact, shared his wealth with the laborers who have enriched him beyond his wildest dreams. Yet, you seem to have no problem with him.

If you are going to come here and blather your Marxist mantra, why don’t you tell us when you became a Marxist?

Answer this, if you have the cajones, Greggie:

if you think that laborers, who have already been paid for their labor, have the right to share in the future profits of their labor, should they also have to share in any financial loss that might possibly be experience from the company they labored for? While the creator of the business, through his/her own intellectual property, will lose everything they invested, is it not also fair that the laborer also lose everything they invested, as well?

@Nanny G:

Do a little research and see what the unions are doing. Communist Party USA are holding their meetings at union halls all across the nation, especially CWA union halls. CPUSA is marching, side by side, with unions during election cycles, and for other agendas. The Secretary of the UAW St. Louis local is a self proclaimed Communist.

Unions have seem major decreases in their membership, and while their partnership with the CPUSA is nothing new, they have become more frantic to spread their vileness in order to maintain their political clout. People like Greggie will never address the New York teacher’s Rubber Rooms, or the fact that it was proven in an expose that UAW members were drinking, and smoking pot, on their lunch hours only to return to the assembly line half drunk/stoned and the union fought the company against firing these union members.

It’s no longer about the worker. It’s about the political clout the union big wigs gain. The president of the IAFF was tagged to be considered for the VP slot with John Kerry. The NLRB, under Obama, has been stacked with former union big wigs. Only Americans are waking up and realizing that unions are not out to help the laborer, they are out to create political influence for the union big wigs and the laborer, via their monthly union dues, are paying for that.

@Nanny G, #31:

Do you not realize that, when the UAW attempedt to organize the workers at the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga the VW company ” agreed not to resist the organizing effort and gave the union access to the plant and its workers. If the union couldn’t win an election under those conditions, it is a powerful sign of how weak, indeed toxic, unions have become in recent years.

All it reveals is that a majority of plant workers have decided that they don’t presently want union representation. It doesn’t signal that they think unions are weak or toxic, or that they believe the ridiculous story that the UAW single-handedly destroyed Detroit. The most likely reason is simply that workers are satisfied with their current pay, benefits, and working conditions—a recommendation for Volkswagen as an employer. When workers are being respected and treated fairly, that’s the likely outcome of a democratic election. Consider the possibility that Volkswagen may not be representative of all corporate employers.

@retire05, #32:

I’m arguing that working people have every right to organize and to collectively seek a fair share of the wealth that their own labors and creativity produce. You seem to think that’s a form of robbery.

That, Greggie, is pure, unadulterated Marxism in its most basic form.

That’s totally ridiculous. Apparently you believe that anyone who doesn’t happily volunteer for serfdom is a Marxist.

People own their own time, creative abilities, and capacity to perform work and render services. They have every right to set a price on those things. That’s a fundamental part of the free market system that you claim to like so much. Evidently you like it only to the extent that it serves your own ends.

@retire05, #33:

It’s no longer about the worker. It’s about the political clout the union big wigs gain.

Careful, you’re getting perilously close to telling the truth. It’s about the fact that unions are major donors to the Democratic party, and you would like to see that funding source out of the picture. The many big money special interests providing the GOP with enormous sums to further their own interests doesn’t bother you in the least, however. It that case, you’re happy to see corporations equated with individuals and extended all the rights of an individual. You likely believe they should be able to spend however much they want to influence the outcome of elections, and be able to do so secretly. In all likelihood, you’d also prefer to see the money they spend be tax deductible.

@Greg: @Greg: All it reveals is that a majority of plant workers have decided that they don’t presently want union representation. It doesn’t signal that they think unions are weak or toxic, or that they believe the ridiculous story that the UAW single-handedly destroyed Detroit. The most likely reason is simply that workers are satisfied with their current pay, benefits, and working conditions—a recommendation for Volkswagen as an employer

Well, finally!
Workers have been interviewed by a number of morning business shows….CNBC, Fox, Bloomberg.
One thing every one of them says is that the parity part of unionizing was a deal-killer.
Putting their wages on parity with Detroit’s UAW workers would have meant a (on average) $3/hour pay cut!
That is BEFORE their mandatory union dues would come out, Greg.
Next year UAW is free to come back to that same plant to try again.
Before that they can try at other Southern plants.
Maybe they ought to try taking better care of the workers they still have as opposed to trying to add more.
They are under 400,000 members.
And that number is falling.

@Greg:

That’s totally ridiculous. Apparently you believe that anyone who doesn’t happily volunteer for serfdom is a Marxist.

So you seem to think that anyone who doesn’t share in the profits from another’s intellectual property is reduced to being a serf? I highly recommend you read The Road To Serfdom. Educate yourself.

People own their own time, creative abilities, and capacity to perform work and render services. They have every right to set a price on those things. That’s a fundamental part of the free market system that you claim to like so much. Evidently you like it only to the extent that it serves your own ends.

They also have every right to decline a job that doesn’t pay them what they are asking. Employment is a contract. I offer you a job at a set price, and you accept or decline or you tell me what price you are willing to work for and I accept, or decline. If I offer you a price, and you accept it, you have no right to come back and demand that I change that price because you feel slighted. You do have the right to quit, and seek other employment.@Greg:

Careful, you’re getting perilously close to telling the truth. It’s about the fact that unions are major donors to the

Democratic party, and you would like to see that funding source out of the picture. The many big money special interests providing the GOP with enormous sums to further their own interests doesn’t bother you in the least, however. It that case, you’re happy to see corporations equated with individuals and extended all the rights of an individual. You likely believe they should be able to spend however much they want to influence the outcome of elections, and be able to do so secretly. In all likelihood, you’d also prefer to see the money they spend be tax deductible.

How is a corporation any different than a union, Greggie? Both are made up of “members” (those who belong to unions pay dues to belong; those who are members of a corporation are stock holders who also have invested their money into the organization) who work for common goals; both have CEOs or Presidents, both have officers, both are made of individuals who constitute the whole, just like 50 states constitute the whole of a nation.

If you want to end the practice of companies having PACS that lobby on behalf of their interests, you’re a hypocrite if you don’t demand the same of unions.

@Nanny G: Just brought to mind by hubby that another of the reasons these Tenn. workers at VW rejected the UAW was the pension issue.
Apparently VW’s pension situation for each worker is completely solvent.
But, as I’m sure you know, the UAW has many problems of unfunded liabilities in their union members.
This was yet another point brought up this AM during the VW workers’ interviews on the AM shows.

@retire05, #38:

They also have every right to decline a job that doesn’t pay them what they are asking. Employment is a contract. I offer you a job at a set price, and you accept or decline or you tell me what price you are willing to work for and I accept, or decline. If I offer you a price, and you accept it, you have no right to come back and demand that I change that price because you feel slighted.

Circumstances change with the passage of time. What was reasonable at the beginning of an employer/employee relationship might not be so reasonable 5 years later. Your workers do have a right to renegotiate. Your problem is that you don’t like it.

If you want to end the practice of companies having PACS that lobby on behalf of their interests, you’re a hypocrite if you don’t demand the same of unions.

You’re the one who wants to kill off an entire category that makes political donations to further their members’ collective interests—specifically, unions—while leaving corporate donors at liberty to spend whatever they wish. The hypocrisy is your own.

@retire05:

He just flew to California to get away from the cold and nasty weather in D.C.

and Moochelle.

@Greg:

, #38:

They also have every right to decline a job that doesn’t pay them what they are asking.

You’re arguing with a guy that advocates $2 an hour as a fair wage and is now protective of people’s rights to decline what they deem unfair.

One aspect of the vote that’s indeed telling is that the workers had an above average great employer yet had such a close vote.

@Greg:

Circumstances change with the passage of time. What was reasonable at the beginning of an employer/employee relationship might not be so reasonable 5 years later. Your workers do have a right to renegotiate. Your problem is that you don’t like it.

If, after 5 years of working for someone, you haven’t received the compensation, or the benefits, that you think you deserve, you are more than free to seek employment elsewhere. It’s just that simple. And I fully support employer/employee negotiations, only on an individual basis, not having the union’s gun to an employer’s head.
I totally support “merit” raises.

You’re the one who wants to kill off an entire category that makes political donations to further their members’ collective interests—specifically, unions—while leaving corporate donors at liberty to spend whatever they wish.

Wrong again. But if unions are going to be allowed to be involved in the election process, corporations have an equal right to be involved. And the SCOTUS agrees with me.

@Ronald J. Ward:

You’re arguing with a guy that advocates $2 an hour as a fair wage and is now protective of people’s rights to decline what they deem unfair.

Go back to teabagging your boyfriend instead of lying.

@retire05:

Go back to teabagging your boyfriend

He never did take a break.

@Greg: Again I ask what union do you or have you belonged to? Spill it or shut it.

Is your last name really Pelosi?

I am a member of the UAW and I have read all the posts here on this subject. The conservatives talk about how the UAW destroyed Detroit. I have lost count on how many times I’ve read that the unions killed Hostess. The union gave concessions and Hostess execs kept giving themselves bonuses.

WE build what is put in front of us to build. We do NOT make any decisions in engineering/design. Next I’ll be reading that it’s the UAW’s fault about the faulty ignition switches on the Chevy Cobalt.

I have not read one single comment from a conservative that ever says anything bad about corporations. People run corporations and just because you have your Harvard degree doesn’t mean you have common sense and know how to run a company! So many times I’ve seen promotions that were NOT based on performance, but based on who you are buddies with.

@Norman:

I have not read one single comment from a conservative that ever says anything bad about corporations. People run corporations and just because you have your Harvard degree doesn’t mean you have common sense and know how to run a company! So many times I’ve seen promotions that were NOT based on performance, but based on who you are buddies with.

Okay Norman, I’m going to blow that out of the water. I am clearly a conservative. Unions have good and bad points. Corporations have good and bad points. I have been a local union shop steward and I have been an executive with a major manufacturing company. Unions wore out their benefits about 40 years ago. When unions started striking just because they could, their usefulness was done. Unions still, to this day, protest the big dollars a large company CEO makes, but sees nothing wrong with the big bucks union officials extort their members out of. Almost all of the evils that have befallen the unions have come about because of the greed of the members. I personally know of no benefit that any union member gets that they wouldn’t have gotten more of if they had not been a union member. Now for companies. you said: “People run corporations and just because you have your Harvard degree doesn’t mean you have common sense and know how to run a company! So many times I’ve seen promotions that were NOT based on performance, but based on who you are buddies with.” I agree. But having a degree also does not mean that you ‘can’t’ run a company. Do you think all union promotions are done on ‘ability’ and not ‘buddy-buddy’? Do you think having a degree makes a better union leader, or a worse leader? I believe ‘most’ promotions in companies come through personal relationships and friendships and rarely are based on ability. I have actually been told that someone rather have someone that is a ‘team player’ more so than the consideration of their ability.
Were I the CEO, I would rather have someone that had the companies interests and profits as their priorities. If they do, they will have an excellent team and ‘team players’ would have to be a consideration.
So now, Norman, admit that you’re heard a conservative say something bad about a corporation.

Redteam, I also agree with some of your points, but I can also state that the company I work for would have NEVER given us the rate of pay we got without union representation.

Unions wore out their benefits years ago? Google this: Wisconsin repeal weekends off.

Another one of my favorites I keep hearing is, “Unions aren’t needed any longer. There are labor laws in place that cover workplace safety, discrimination, etc etc.” Yes, there are laws in place and the conservatives are and have been repealing those too. Google this: Maine child labor laws. Unions are still very much needed and the conservatives are going to do everything in their power to weaken us. We’ll be heard at the polls!

In all due respect, there are many policies in which I am not in agreement of. There are entitlements that go both ways that I feel should be limited or changed all together. I’m a single guy and I certainly pay my fair share in taxes, but there are too many people who are capable of working that refuse to work. There is also way too much corporate welfare and that even comes with a steeper price tag. Both parties have their problems and issues, so to be fair, I just want you to know that I am not an extremist left Democrat, but the Democratic Party is the only hope we have for working families.

I am an Ohioan and Kasich keeps telling us that RTW is not part of his agenda. Snyder from Michigan said the same thing. Snyder got the squeeze put on him from his donors, so he got it passed in a lame duck session. Walker from Wisconsin is doing every possible thing he can do to hurt the unions and he’s been successful. We won’t forget.

My big problem with legislature being passed by those who are supposed to represent “the people”, if that was true, put it on the ballot and let “the people”, you and I, be heard. Fair enough?

Please note that I am not anti-corporation. Our corporations need to make money and continue to create jobs. I don’t ever like seeing anyone lose their jobs and that includes those in management. I will continue to offer myself to help when situations arise at work and all I ask is don’t have a short memory when I ask for something that is not monetary.

VW Chattanooga, Nissan, Canton Mississippi, Daimler-Benz Alabama, we’re going to get one of those shops in the UAW. It took the UAW, if memory serves me right, about 10 years to organize Ford.

My union dues is a total of $408 per year. Break that down and it’s $34 per month. A bargain for what the value of our contract is worth to us when you add up my negotiated yearly raises and benefits package that the company would have NEVER given to us out of the goodness of their heart. So that blows your unions aren’t useful anymore out of the water. Oh and I forgot another important thing we’ve got that we didn’t have before and that is the grievance procedure. INVALUABLE and certainly helps to level the playing field when bad management decisions are made and peoples livelihoods are at stake.

Back to your point, as I said prior, I do agree with some of your points and hopefully somewhere down the road we’ll all be able to come together for what is best for all involved. Wishful thinking on my part, but I am diplomatic and respectful.

Thank you for your response.

@Norman: One little bit bothers me. You said:

I have not read one single comment from a conservative that ever says anything bad about corporations.

and I said:

So now, Norman, admit that you’re heard a conservative say something bad about a corporation.

and while you talked all around the subject, you didn’t say that.
Apparently you are a dyed in the wool union believer and I realize that I’m not going to change your opinion that unions are the only thing saving the working folks from slavery. But at least, since you made the big point, you should at least admit you have heard a real conservative say something bad about corporations.
I’m very familiar with a very large paper mill that is non-union. It is non-union because the company wanted it that way. Their pay is higher than comparable paper mills. They are able to work whatever hours (shifts) they want without being constrained by union agreements. If the ‘scheduled’ hours are 7-7, they can work 4-4 or 5-5 with no involvement of the company and no penalty to anyone. If there were a union, they couldn’t do that.

VW Chattanooga, Nissan, Canton Mississippi, Daimler-Benz Alabama, we’re going to get one of those shops in the UAW.

First, I don’t believe that will happen, but if it does, I’ll go on the record that it will be the first of those plants to shut down. Believe it or not, and I know from experience, that a company can give better benefits if they are not bound by so many rules that don’t allow it. I recall one time when an employee came to work intoxicated. The company rules did not allow any discretion in that situation. I personally called his next of kin, had them come get him, walked him to the gate, told him and his next of kin that if it ever happened again that he would be un-employed. He was an excellent employee forever after. Are corporation employees only out to ‘get’ union employees? That guy was a union guy. I treated all the employees in my domain the same way. I had excellent labor relations.

My union dues is a total of $408 per year. Break that down and it’s $34 per month.

and you’re in the UAW? the USW would be at least $34 per week and I’m sure of that. And everyone wonders why USW is going out of business.

I am an Ohioan and Kasich keeps telling us that RTW is not part of his agenda. Snyder from Michigan said the same thing. Snyder got the squeeze put on him from his donors, so he got it passed in a lame duck session.

So just because some other guy didn’t keep his word means Kasich won’t either? What kind of logic is that?
You tried to dismiss my claim that National Union leaders make a ton of money by saying that your dues are only $34 a month. How about talking about what your UAW national leaders salary is. Then tell me how they pay that and what would be a better use of that money.
Thanks for your courteous response.