Obama frustrated with lack of job growth

[driveby]

1. Perhaps you'd like to show where I said Stupak wasn't about abortions, because there is no post in that thread stating that. (of course, you'll weasel out because you know you're lying)
2. Seasonal versus year-round work has nothing to do with how unions are formed.

1) In the link i posted you said the original HR6932 did not fund abortions, i asked you " Then what was the Stupak Amendment? " You said it was " A bill to ban people from buying overage with their own money" .

2) You douchebags keep spinning, when it's time to pick the grapes, she hires pickers to do it. At that time she has a choice to hire union pickers or non union. "Forming a union" has nothing to do with it. Comprende ? .....

1. Context. The bill prevents people from buying coverage for abortions with their own money. That was apparent to everyone reading the thread, but I guess you were too slow to pick up on it.
2. No, she doesn't have a choice. Her company employs pickers. Those pickers choose if they want to form a union or not. She can't order her pickers to form a union.

1. Context that you keep flip flopping, but that's cool.

2. The pickers are employees of her company ? I say no but feel free to prove me wrong if you know for sure .

The point that you and fake mularkey keep diverting from is that she's a champion of union labor but none her businesses employ any. Your excuses are just a cop out, she could insist her employees have union cards if she wanted to. But profits are more important, the very thing her, Obama and the rest of the merry bunch demonize corporations about ......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Driveby, you are not making any sense at all. She has nothing to do with the unionization of her employees. If she interferes with her employees when they unionize, she and her business can be seriously fined.

 

[Polk]

1) In the link i posted you said the original HR6932 did not fund abortions, i asked you " Then what was the Stupak Amendment? " You said it was " A bill to ban people from buying overage with their own money" .

2) You douchebags keep spinning, when it's time to pick the grapes, she hires pickers to do it. At that time she has a choice to hire union pickers or non union. "Forming a union" has nothing to do with it. Comprende ? .....

1. Context. The bill prevents people from buying coverage for abortions with their own money. That was apparent to everyone reading the thread, but I guess you were too slow to pick up on it.
2. No, she doesn't have a choice. Her company employs pickers. Those pickers choose if they want to form a union or not. She can't order her pickers to form a union.

1. Context that you keep flip flopping, but that's cool.

2. The pickers are employees of her company ? I say no but feel free to prove me wrong if you know for sure .

The point that you and fake mularkey keep diverting from is that she's a champion of union labor but none her businesses employ any. Your excuses are just a cop out, she could insist her employees have union cards if she wanted to. But profits are more important, the very thing her, Obama and the rest of the merry bunch demonize corporations about ......

1. I didn't flip flop. Read the thread. Look at the discussion. It was clear to everyone involved the post referred to abortion coverage.
2. Yes, the pickers are employees of her company. I'm not making any excuses. The workers are not unionized because they choose to not be unionized. Short of showing that an attempt to unionize was blocked by some action she committed, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Unions are formed by workers, not by management. So how, exactly, could she form a union for her employees?

 

[Polk]

Driveby, you are not making any sense at all. She has nothing to do with the unionization of her employees. If she interferes with her employees when they unionize, she and her business can be seriously fined.

Well, they're subject to fines and they'd be major for a company the size of hers. In general though, the fines are way too small.

 

[driveby]

1. Context. The bill prevents people from buying coverage for abortions with their own money. That was apparent to everyone reading the thread, but I guess you were too slow to pick up on it.
2. No, she doesn't have a choice. Her company employs pickers. Those pickers choose if they want to form a union or not. She can't order her pickers to form a union.

1. Context that you keep flip flopping, but that's cool.

2. The pickers are employees of her company ? I say no but feel free to prove me wrong if you know for sure .

The point that you and fake mularkey keep diverting from is that she's a champion of union labor but none her businesses employ any. Your excuses are just a cop out, she could insist her employees have union cards if she wanted to. But profits are more important, the very thing her, Obama and the rest of the merry bunch demonize corporations about ......

1. I didn't flip flop. Read the thread. Look at the discussion. It was clear to everyone involved the post referred to abortion coverage.
2. Yes, the pickers are employees of her company. I'm not making any excuses. The workers are not unionized because they choose to not be unionized. Short of showing that an attempt to unionize was blocked by some action she committed, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Unions are formed by workers, not by management. So how, exactly, could she form a union for her employees?

Excuse me if i don't take your word for it that they're her employees. When she started these companies, she could have started with union employees but didn't. If i started a company tomorrow that needed laborers and i wanted union laborers, i'd get them, but Pelosi can't ? or won't ? ........

 

[Polk]

1. Context that you keep flip flopping, but that's cool.

2. The pickers are employees of her company ? I say no but feel free to prove me wrong if you know for sure .

The point that you and fake mularkey keep diverting from is that she's a champion of union labor but none her businesses employ any. Your excuses are just a cop out, she could insist her employees have union cards if she wanted to. But profits are more important, the very thing her, Obama and the rest of the merry bunch demonize corporations about ......

1. I didn't flip flop. Read the thread. Look at the discussion. It was clear to everyone involved the post referred to abortion coverage.
2. Yes, the pickers are employees of her company. I'm not making any excuses. The workers are not unionized because they choose to not be unionized. Short of showing that an attempt to unionize was blocked by some action she committed, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Unions are formed by workers, not by management. So how, exactly, could she form a union for her employees?

Excuse me if i don't take your word for it that they're her employees. When she started these companies, she could have started with union employees but didn't. If i started a company tomorrow that needed laborers and i wanted union laborers, i'd get them, but Pelosi can't ? or won't ? ........

If they work for her company, they're her employees. What's so hard to understand about that?

And if you started a company tomorrow, you couldn't force your hires to join a union.

 

[driveby]

Driveby, you are not making any sense at all. She has nothing to do with the unionization of her employees. If she interferes with her employees when they unionize, she and her business can be seriously fined.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHQn05f_mLg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHQn05f_mLg[/ame]

 

[driveby]

1. I didn't flip flop. Read the thread. Look at the discussion. It was clear to everyone involved the post referred to abortion coverage.
2. Yes, the pickers are employees of her company. I'm not making any excuses. The workers are not unionized because they choose to not be unionized. Short of showing that an attempt to unionize was blocked by some action she committed, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Unions are formed by workers, not by management. So how, exactly, could she form a union for her employees?

Excuse me if i don't take your word for it that they're her employees. When she started these companies, she could have started with union employees but didn't. If i started a company tomorrow that needed laborers and i wanted union laborers, i'd get them, but Pelosi can't ? or won't ? ........

If they work for her company, they're her employees. What's so hard to understand about that?

And if you started a company tomorrow, you couldn't force your hires to join a union.

Ever heard of a union hall ? You can hire the workers from the union hall or you can hire " rats " .....

 

[Polk]

Excuse me if i don't take your word for it that they're her employees. When she started these companies, she could have started with union employees but didn't. If i started a company tomorrow that needed laborers and i wanted union laborers, i'd get them, but Pelosi can't ? or won't ? ........

If they work for her company, they're her employees. What's so hard to understand about that?

And if you started a company tomorrow, you couldn't force your hires to join a union.

Ever heard of a union hall ? You can hire the workers from the union hall or you can hire " rats " .....

That's not how it works. In fact, forcing your workers to unionize is illegal.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

1. I didn't flip flop. Read the thread. Look at the discussion. It was clear to everyone involved the post referred to abortion coverage.
2. Yes, the pickers are employees of her company. I'm not making any excuses. The workers are not unionized because they choose to not be unionized. Short of showing that an attempt to unionize was blocked by some action she committed, you really don't have a leg to stand on. Unions are formed by workers, not by management. So how, exactly, could she form a union for her employees?

Excuse me if i don't take your word for it that they're her employees. When she started these companies, she could have started with union employees but didn't. If i started a company tomorrow that needed laborers and i wanted union laborers, i'd get them, but Pelosi can't ? or won't ? ........

If they work for her company, they're her employees. What's so hard to understand about that?

And if you started a company tomorrow, you couldn't force your hires to join a union.

You idiot!!!!! When I began working for Dayco National Hose Co. I was told joining the union (Cork, Rubber and Linoleum Workers Union) WAS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT!!

Now quit bullshitting everyone with a subject you obviously know little about!!!!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

If they work for her company, they're her employees. What's so hard to understand about that?

And if you started a company tomorrow, you couldn't force your hires to join a union.

Ever heard of a union hall ? You can hire the workers from the union hall or you can hire " rats " .....

That's not how it works. In fact, forcing your workers to unionize is illegal.

When it's a condition of employment it is NOT ILLEGAL!! Wake up dumbass!!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ever heard of a union hall ? You can hire the workers from the union hall or you can hire " rats " .....

That's not how it works. In fact, forcing your workers to unionize is illegal.

When it's a condition of employment it is NOT ILLEGAL!! Wake up dumbass!!!!

Oh, you mean if the state labor laws require it, right? You don't mean because the boss requires, because the boss can't legally require it. Such a weak, weak attempt, PP, by you.

 

[Polk]

Excuse me if i don't take your word for it that they're her employees. When she started these companies, she could have started with union employees but didn't. If i started a company tomorrow that needed laborers and i wanted union laborers, i'd get them, but Pelosi can't ? or won't ? ........

If they work for her company, they're her employees. What's so hard to understand about that?

And if you started a company tomorrow, you couldn't force your hires to join a union.

You idiot!!!!! When I began working for Dayco National Hose Co. I was told joining the union (Cork, Rubber and Linoleum Workers Union) WAS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT!!

Now quit bullshitting everyone with a subject you obviously know little about!!!!

It's a condition for employment because the workers of that firm chose to unionize and in some states, workers who directly benefit from the union's collective bargaining are required to join the union. The condition is not set by the employer. It's set by state labor laws.

 

[Maple]

I have family members that are small business and are non-union, they pay better than Union shops and provide better benefits. The one family member that voted for Obama realized that he was locked out of bidding on jobs from the stimulus money because he runs a non-union shop, he won't be voting for Obama again.

Unions were good back in the 30's, 40's and 50's, but now all I see is alot of fat at the top level and little at the bottom. I have one family member who is union and their company was in charge of wiring a military barrack, some union hacks went in at night and cut the wiring so short that they had to go back in a rewire the entire complex. My family member was furious, he had an idea who did this, but no proof. The only reason the Union hacks did this, was to extend the job. That's tax payer money that paid for that. Since then, I have lost all respect for unions and don't think that they are needed in this day and age.

 

[Maple]

Excuse me if i don't take your word for it that they're her employees. When she started these companies, she could have started with union employees but didn't. If i started a company tomorrow that needed laborers and i wanted union laborers, i'd get them, but Pelosi can't ? or won't ? ........

If they work for her company, they're her employees. What's so hard to understand about that?

And if you started a company tomorrow, you couldn't force your hires to join a union.

You idiot!!!!! When I began working for Dayco National Hose Co. I was told joining the union (Cork, Rubber and Linoleum Workers Union) WAS A CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT!!

Now quit bullshitting everyone with a subject you obviously know little about!!!!

I used to work for the phone company, Ma Bell, in the olden days. Ma Bell had departments that were Union and other departments that were not. If you were in a department that was union, you were forced to pay union dues. It was not an option to bow out of those dues. It is not a choice, if you work for a union shop, you pay union dues, and the Union always, always, supports the DEMOCRATIC ticket.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have family members that are small business and are non-union, they pay better than Union shops and provide better benefits. The one family member that voted for Obama realized that he was locked out of bidding on jobs from the stimulus money because he runs a non-union shop, he won't be voting for Obama again.

Unions were good back in the 30's, 40's and 50's, but now all I see is alot of fat at the top level and little at the bottom. I have one family member who is union and their company was in charge of wiring a military barrack, some union hacks went in at night and cut the wiring so short that they had to go back in a rewire the entire complex. My family member was furious, he had an idea who did this, but no proof. The only reason the Union hacks did this, was to extend the job. That's tax payer money that paid for that. Since then, I have lost all respect for unions and don't think that they are needed in this day and age.

Hasty generalization and extension of anecdotal evidence. Not worthy of further comment.

 

[rightwinger]

Like it or not, Unions or the threat of unions keep management in line.
40 hour work week, workplace safety, health and life insurance...would not be there if left to the generosity of management

 

[JakeStarkey]

Management would have us working for minimum wage for many more hours than forty a week if it could. To suggest that mgt "cares" for the welfare of its employees is oxymoronic.

 

[xsited1]

Management would have us working for minimum wage for many more hours than forty a week if it could. To suggest that mgt "cares" for the welfare of its employees is oxymoronic.

Hasty generalization and extension of anecdotal evidence. Not worthy of further comment.

 

[Oddball]

Management would have us working for minimum wage for many more hours than forty a week if it could. To suggest that mgt "cares" for the welfare of its employees is oxymoronic.

Hasty generalization and extension of anecdotal evidence. Not worthy of further comment.

And let's not foget the 500 lb. strawman in the room!