When has a union created a job?

[Amelia]

Part of the problem with public unions is that employers have nowhere to go when unions become too demanding.

States can't pick up and leave to escape from the strangulation.

 

[grunt11b]

After thinking about that for a few minutes.....and going over Healthmyths' wonderful thread about how wealthy our poor people are, I have had a change of heart.

There are some really stupid AND insecure people here.

If you compare what we as Americans think are poor people to the people of the world who really are poor, you can see the difference. Our poor people have cell phones and cars, they dont have to worry about paying there bills because they are paid for by the taxpayer. Be honest here, when you see folks who claim to be poor buying cigarettes and booze, are they really poor? By world standards, our poor people in America are way better off then poor people from around the rest of the world.

A fact we can all be proud of and thankful for.

Maybe you can, but I can't. Capital should not be taken from one man to be given to another who is not willing to go out and earn it themselves. If they have enough money to buy cellphones and booze with then they do not need to be getting a penny from the taxpayer.

 

[Chris]

When have unions spilled 2 million barrels of oil in the Gulf of Mexico?

When have unions created a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy?

When have unions fought against the minimum wage and healthcare for all Americans?

When have unions sought to abolish child labor laws?

When have unions bought influence in Congress that was against the best interests of all Americans?

When?

Every time the min wage gets raised and it hurts especially black teenagers. I realize you don't give two shits about black teenagers but some of us want to see them work their way out of poverty and oppression by the government.
When have corporations used violence against people for nothing other than crossing a line?

When have corporations used violence against people?

You must be joking.

Some anti-union violence appears to be random, such as an incident during the 1912 textile strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, in which a police officer fired into a crowd of strikers, killing Anna LoPizzo.[25]

Anti-union violence may be used as a means to intimidate others, as in the hanging of union organizer Frank Little from a railroad trestle in Butte, Montana. A note was pinned to his body which said, "Others Take Notice! First And Last Warning!" The initial of the last names of seven well-known union activists in the Butte area were on the note, with the "L" for Frank Little circled.[26][27]

Anti-union violence may be abrupt and unanticipated. Three years after Frank Little was lynched, a strike by Butte miners was suppressed with gunfire when deputized mine guards suddenly fired upon unarmed picketers in the Anaconda Road Massacre. Seventeen were shot in the back as they tried to flee, and one man died.[28]


Machine gun equipped armored car built with steel from CF&I's Pueblo steel works, known to the striking miners as the Death Special. "The machine gun was turned on striking miners and used to riddle the Forbes tent colony."[29]The unprovoked attack was similar to another event, which had occurred twenty-three years earlier in Pennsylvania. During the Lattimer massacre, nineteen unarmed immigrant coal miners were suddenly gunned down at the Lattimer mine near Hazleton, Pennsylvania, on September 10, 1897.[30][31] The miners, mostly of Polish, Slovak, Lithuanian and German ethnicity, were shot and killed by a Luzerne County sheriff's posse. In this group as well, all of the miners had been shot in the back.[32][33] The shooting followed a brief tussle over the American flag carried by the miners. Their only crime was asserting their right to march in the face of demands that they disperse.

The sudden and unexpected nature of these two shooting incidents bring to mind another; in 1927, during a coal strike in Colorado, state police and mine guards fired pistols, rifles and a machine gun into a group of five hundred striking miners and their wives in what came to be called the Columbine Mine Massacre. In this incident as well, many of the miners were immigrants, and there had been a disagreement over the question of trespassing onto company property in the town of Serene, with the miners asserting it was public property because of the post office. There was, once again, a tussle over American flags carried by the strikers.

While the Columbine mine shooting was a surprise, newspapers played a deadly role in conjuring the atmosphere of hate in which the violence occurred. Lurid editorials attacked the ethnicity of the strikers.[34] Newspapers began calling for the governor to no longer withhold the "mailed fist", to strike hard and strike swiftly,[35] and for "Machine Guns Manned By Willing Shooters" at more of the state's coal mines.[36] Within days of these editorials, state police and mine guards fired on the miners and their wives, injuring dozens and killing six.[37]

In all of the above incidents, the perpetrators were never caught, or went unpunished. An exception resulted from a shooting of strikers at the Williams & Clark Fertilizing Company near the Liebig Fertilizer Works at Carteret, New Jersey in 1915. One striker was killed outright, and more than twenty were injured in an unprovoked attack when deputies fired on strikers who had stopped a train to check for strikebreakers. The strikers found no strikebreakers, and were cheering as they exited the train. Forty deputies approached and suddenly fired on them with revolvers, rifles, and shotguns. As the strikers ran, "the deputies ... pursued, firing again and again."[38] According to attending physicians, all the strikers' wounds were on the backs or legs, indicating the guards were pursuing them.[39] A local government official who witnessed the shooting called it entirely unprovoked.[40] Four more of the strikers, all critically injured, would die. Twenty-two of the guards were arrested and the crime was investigated by a Grand Jury; nine deputies were subsequently convicted of manslaughter.[41]

Other anti-union violence may seem orchestrated, as in 1914 when mine guards and the state militia fired into a tent colony of striking miners in Colorado, an incident that came to be known as the Ludlow Massacre.[42] During that strike, the company hired the Baldwin Felts agency, which built an armored car so their agents could approach the strikers' tent colonies with impunity. The strikers called it the "Death Special". At the Forbes tent colony,

"[The Death Special] opened fire, a protracted spurt that sent some six hundred bullets tearing through the thin tents. One of the shots struck miner Luka Vahernik, fifty, in the head, killing him instantly. Another striker, Marco Zamboni, eighteen ... suffered nine bullet wounds to his legs... One tent was later found to have about 150 bullet holes..."[43]

After deaths of women and children at Ludlow,

[T]he backlash was vicious and bloody. Over the next ten days striking miners poured out their rage in attacks across the coalfields...[44]

The U.S. Army was called upon to put an end to the violence, and the strike sputtered to an end that December.[45]

Anti-union violence may be devious and subtle, as when union busting specialist Martin Jay Levitt assigned confederates to scratch up cars in the parking lot of a nursing home during an organizing drive, and then blamed it on the union as part of an anti-union campaign.[46]


Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. Many of the approximately 146 who died were forced by the flames to jump, and died when they hit the sidewalk. Locked doors were meant to keep the workers from pilfering. Triangle was "an exceptionally anti-union company".[47]Violence against working people can be an unintentional result of management policy but still deadly, as when garment workers were trapped in the building during the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The doors were locked to allow managers to check the women's purses as they left, to deter theft.[48] Triangle had been the target of a prolonged strike two years before the fire. At least one hundred forty-three workers were killed while trying to escape the flames.[49] The company had "employed extreme measures against strikers who demanded higher wages and safer working conditions."[50]

Anti-union violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Chris]

If you compare what we as Americans think are poor people to the people of the world who really are poor, you can see the difference. Our poor people have cell phones and cars, they dont have to worry about paying there bills because they are paid for by the taxpayer. Be honest here, when you see folks who claim to be poor buying cigarettes and booze, are they really poor? By world standards, our poor people in America are way better off then poor people from around the rest of the world.

A fact we can all be proud of and thankful for.

Maybe you can, but I can't. Capital should not be taken from one man to be given to another who is not willing to go out and earn it themselves. If they have enough money to buy cellphones and booze with then they do not need to be getting a penny from the taxpayer.

I don't think you should talk about our retired military that way.

 

[Cammmpbell]

Every time the min wage gets raised and it hurts especially black teenagers. I realize you don't give two shits about black teenagers but some of us want to see them work their way out of poverty and oppression by the government.
When have corporations used violence against people for nothing other than crossing a line?

Oh..they've done it. Perhaps you need to study up on the Robber Baron Days of our country during the Industrial Revolution and beyond. Corporations killed strikers with the help of local militias on numerous occasions. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Back in the day...yes, but that is not happening now. You act like if we didn't have unions now it would be like that all over again, which is not true. The unions of back then have a had a far different agenda than the unions of today.

Bullshit...they worked for a living wage, health care, a way to quit working before they died on the job and some sense of security. I was in a union for about ten years, OCAW local 9-288. The company never gave anybody a damn thing but when they saw they were going to have to grant something to the union workers they hurried up and gave it to the salaried employees first. In some cases no more than the week before. A company looks at one thing...bottom line profit. They wouldn't give a nun enough warm piss to take a pill if someone or some thing didn't make them.

 

[Dragon]

Unions always create jobs. That's because unions keep wages high, high wages mean high consumer demand, and high consumer demand means high investment in the production of goods and services to satisfy that demand.

It's wrong to call the rich and corporations "job creators." Consumers create jobs. Businesses are just the middlemen.

For that matter, consumers create businesses, too.

 

[grunt11b]

After thinking about that for a few minutes.....and going over Healthmyths' wonderful thread about how wealthy our poor people are, I have had a change of heart.

There are some really stupid AND insecure people here.

If you compare what we as Americans think are poor people to the people of the world who really are poor, you can see the difference. Our poor people have cell phones and cars, they dont have to worry about paying there bills because they are paid for by the taxpayer. Be honest here, when you see folks who claim to be poor buying cigarettes and booze, are they really poor? By world standards, our poor people in America are way better off then poor people from around the rest of the world.

wow.... I guess that only reinforces my belief that the REAL Conservative agenda is to make our country like all those other ones where the poor is "REALLY" poor.

In case you missed it, Obama is ushering in the misery of the days of old, while COnservatives are fighting him tooth and nail to reverse it.

Thanks for proving my point.... that Conservatives are the REAL anti-Americans... Not Progressives. Progressives want a degree of Comfort and success for ALL Americans... not just the select few who "make it".
Furthermore, Progressives... unlike Popular Conservative Opinion... aren't calling for income equality(everyone making the same), we just don't want to be hosed by the ultra wealthy.

If you honestly believe that then you need to get out from under that rock. The difference between conservatives and progressives is that we believe that each man should make it on there own without the government getting involved. progressives use the power of government to ram through there own agenda regardless of what liberties it violates. Big difference. If you look at the progressive presidents in the history of America, you will see that each one passed legislation that hurt America and took even more liberty away from the American people, not helped America.

I think enough of our population is speaking in volumes about how much they are struggling... yet all I hear is that "they aren't REALLY poor", or "they're just lazy", or a host of other bullshit remarks that are just parroted talking points that come forth by wealthy, greedy people who don't want to "Trickle Down" to the people that made them wealthy.

They must not be poor enough, because they absolutely refuse to work even when offered a job.
Remember the OWS protesters who refused applications?

I am starting to think that the wealthy elite's vision for this country come from studying Banana Republics in Central and South America, and saying YEAH.... that's the way I want MY country to run!

Your country is the former soviet union apparently.

If this is the case... it's YOUR side that is the enemy of the State... Not the Progressives, who want everyone to live a better life. We are a BETTER Society than Banana Republics, We are a BETTER Society than a Corporatist dictatorship like China, We are the best country in the world and we need to set the damned bar MUCH higher than it is right now. If the wealthy elite have a problem with that, Maybe it's they who need to get the fuck out of OUR country. I consider them borderline traitors anyway.

Maybe you should write Obama a letter explaining to him your disdain for his economic adviser, you know the CEO of general electric that has not paid taxes in 3 years? If you want people to take you serious than maybe you shouldn't have a double standard when it comes to the haves and have nots.

 

[grunt11b]

When has a union created a job?

When, largely through the efforts of the Labor Movement, a working person, unionized or not, makes a decent enough wage to have some discretionary income to pump back into the economy and the free time to pump it back in.

That's when.

That's discretionary spending, that isn't a union creating a job.

 

[grunt11b]

Unions don't create Jobs, they save them. Sheesh, some of you 1%ers really need a dose of reality.

So, if I ran a corporation and had union workers, and the union leaders wanted me to pay there workers an amount of money that I do not agree to pay, and I choose to move my company overseas and all of those unions workers lost there jobs, did the union save those jobs?

 

[newpolitics]

Or for that matter.. when has a group of poor people created jobs?

Or why don't we declare ALL businesses are NONPROFIT!

Which means there will be committees , i.e. central planners in D.C. that will tell all oil, transportation, manufacturers how often they will drill, or pump or when cars can be on the roads, or how many iPads can be built because
Central planning" says there isn't enough lithium available for the batteries because Central planning hasn't signed the Afghanistan agreement from China!

NOT for profits meaning NO Federal income/state/local/sales or property taxes!

Come on all of you are in favor of withdrawing from these evil profit making banks and putting into those kindly nonprofit credit unions right???
AFter all they have "union" in their name!

So who will pay the property taxes after all NONPROFITS are exempt!

Again.. tell me all you OWS supporters.. why not do away with ALL evil for profit companies?

Because that seems to be the logical extension!

The idea of 'creating a job' is ridiculous. They don't come into existence by 'creating' them. Companies hire people, they don't create them. If a company is not hiring, they are not hiring. sorry. conservatives insistence on the simple number of jobs created is so overly simplistic, and worse or their methods or ideas for making the situation better... even worse is how they blame others when they have no original ideas of their own, other than to 'take it easy on the rich.' The right is a joke... I don't know how you all support your own logic without laughing at yourself.

 

[grunt11b]

A fact we can all be proud of and thankful for.

Maybe you can, but I can't. Capital should not be taken from one man to be given to another who is not willing to go out and earn it themselves. If they have enough money to buy cellphones and booze with then they do not need to be getting a penny from the taxpayer.

I don't think you should talk about our retired military that way.

I myself am prior military who collects a small pension. Apparently you have me mistaken for someone else.
Under a contract our military members signed when they enlisted they are entitled to that pension.
Some lazy ass bum who openly chooses to not work but relishes the 1st of every month so he can get taxpayer dollars to go to the bar with does not deserve it and it should not be allowed. It creates a society of independent citizens and leads to the national decline of the labor force.
If you really want to know what is happening in America today look no further than the entitlement programs implemented in the last 70 years, it all leads to dependence and a welfare state. That's why you see OWS'ers refusing jobs that have been offered to them, they dont want to work, they just want someone else to pay for them.

 

[grunt11b]

Oh..they've done it. Perhaps you need to study up on the Robber Baron Days of our country during the Industrial Revolution and beyond. Corporations killed strikers with the help of local militias on numerous occasions. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Back in the day...yes, but that is not happening now. You act like if we didn't have unions now it would be like that all over again, which is not true. The unions of back then have a had a far different agenda than the unions of today.

Bullshit...they worked for a living wage, health care, a way to quit working before they died on the job and some sense of security. I was in a union for about ten years, OCAW local 9-288. The company never gave anybody a damn thing but when they saw they were going to have to grant something to the union workers they hurried up and gave it to the salaried employees first. In some cases no more than the week before. A company looks at one thing...bottom line profit. They wouldn't give a nun enough warm piss to take a pill if someone or some thing didn't make them.

And like I said before, that is between the worker and the employer to negotiate that, not an outside entity. The employer either makes his workers happy or he goes out of business. Unions went from standing up for the worker back in the day to using the worker as a means to run a ponzi scheme as a special interest to politicians.

 

[grunt11b]

Unions always create jobs. That's because unions keep wages high, high wages mean high consumer demand, and high consumer demand means high investment in the production of goods and services to satisfy that demand.

It's wrong to call the rich and corporations "job creators." Consumers create jobs. Businesses are just the middlemen.

For that matter, consumers create businesses, too.

Higher wages also means the price of the product will be higher as well. You dont actually think the employer is just gonna suck up that loss in cash do you? And if they cannot lay anyone off they raise the price of the product to make up the difference. In the end it hurts the middle and lower class, the same people the unions and Democrats swear they are trying to help.
And higher wages do not mean higher consumer demand. A good product at a reasonable price will though.

 

[healthmyths]

When 3 trucks pulled up to a jobsite of mine in Floridastan with loads of drywall and the owner was forced to "call the hall" since there were only journeyman on the job and unloading of trucks was work for laborers.

Great classic FEATHERBED story!

When I was going to college I paid for it working a summer job at the factory my Dad worked at. I was a "utility" worker and had to join the Union for the job. For several weeks I repaired wooden pallets. One day a truck load of new pallets came in and to finish them I was told by the foreman to add a couple of pieces of wood. Happy to work with new lumber, I was told to stop by the shop steward. Seems ONLY carpenters under union contract could work on NEW lumber!

Job protection/feather bedding//
OH yea I had my dues taken from my paycheck so those union leaders could donate 90% to the Democrat party!

 

[Cammmpbell]

Some lazy ass bum who openly chooses to not work but relishes the 1st of every month so he can get taxpayer dollars to go to the bar with does not deserve it and it should not be allowed. .

I'll tell you what soldier boy...send me a list containing names and addresses of those who are doing that and I promise you I will personally put a stop to it.

The fact is that because of the percentage of single moms food stamps mostly go to feed hungry children. Right now is one period where more people are on food stamps than at any other time since they began to issue them. We also have about 20 million unemployed...when those who have stopped looking are included, 45 million with no health insurance, tens of thousands of students with $50,000-$100,000 college debts, stagnated wages for what used to be the middle class and while all this continues the upper 1% of Americans have quadrupled their wealth in the last fifteen years. There will be a breaking point...it's not whether, it's when.

 

[Dragon]

Higher wages also means the price of the product will be higher as well. You dont actually think the employer is just gonna suck up that loss in cash do you?

Most of the time, yes. If he can -- if the market will pay a higher price -- he'll raise his price, but then, the same thing will happen if labor costs DON'T go up. Because business charge as much as they can for what they offer, not as much as they have to.

And higher wages do not mean higher consumer demand. A good product at a reasonable price will though.

Not if people aren't making enough money to pay that reasonable price.

Demand = desire to buy + ability to buy. Ability to buy = how much money people have. Higher wages = people have more money. Higher wages = higher consumer demand. Q.E.D.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Unions always create jobs. That's because unions keep wages high, high wages mean high consumer demand, and high consumer demand means high investment in the production of goods and services to satisfy that demand.

It's wrong to call the rich and corporations "job creators." Consumers create jobs. Businesses are just the middlemen.

For that matter, consumers create businesses, too.

The only way a union can create jobs is by assimilating other non-union companies into their collective. When the unions begin to control the majority of the corporations in a state, they then have the leverage to dictate how much a customer MUST pay to have a service provided. Why? Because you have taken away any hope of "choice and competition" based on the caliber of the product presented, for the customer to articulate a decision of their own individual set standards when selecting a good product. Without companies competing for your business, quality of work is sacrificed. Just because you pay an individual 10 dollars an hour more than the non-union worker, doesn't mean you will find higher production or a better quality product. Which automotive company suffered and was in need of a government bailout, were they union or non-union? Ask yourself: Why is that?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

After thinking about that for a few minutes.....and going over Healthmyths' wonderful thread about how wealthy our poor people are, I have had a change of heart.

There are some really stupid AND insecure people here.

If you compare what we as Americans think are poor people to the people of the world who really are poor, you can see the difference. Our poor people have cell phones and cars, they dont have to worry about paying there bills because they are paid for by the taxpayer. Be honest here, when you see folks who claim to be poor buying cigarettes and booze, are they really poor? By world standards, our poor people in America are way better off then poor people from around the rest of the world.

wow.... I guess that only reinforces my belief that the REAL Conservative agenda is to make our country like all those other ones where the poor is "REALLY" poor.

Thanks for proving my point.... that Conservatives are the REAL anti-Americans... Not Progressives. Progressives want a degree of Comfort and success for ALL Americans... not just the select few who "make it".
Furthermore, Progressives... unlike Popular Conservative Opinion... aren't calling for income equality(everyone making the same), we just don't want to be hosed by the ultra wealthy.

How is the government providing "Comforts" to those who don't work, welfare or long term unemployment, actually benefiting the working environment as a whole? There was a time when people looked to find work wherever one can be provided, where if you didn't work you didn't eat, where people who DIDN'T work were called Hobos and "shunned" by those who make it their own determination to labor and BUILD towards providing a better way of life for their family.

Now the system of honoring success is reversed, as we have a "progressive" ideology concept that believes in providing "Comforts" to those who choose not to work as a form of Federal Government reward for not providing for themselves. In turn the progressive concept demonizes those who DO work and profit from their own acquired knowledge, skills, and hard work. So how is rewarding those who don't earn for themselves forces these same individuals out of their "poverty" and into a working environment towards a better way of life? Growing accustomed with the gift of receiving, there is no motivation to pull them out of their "poor lifestyle" under their own weight of hard work and determination. There is something to be said for personal responsibility as the only successful means to pull oneself out of a life of poverty. Personal responsibility, not GOVERNMENT responsibility.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Unions don't create Jobs, they save them. Sheesh, some of you 1%ers really need a dose of reality.

Tell that to Dodge and General Motors Corporations.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Unions always create jobs. That's because unions keep wages high, high wages mean high consumer demand, and high consumer demand means high investment in the production of goods and services to satisfy that demand.

It's wrong to call the rich and corporations "job creators." Consumers create jobs. Businesses are just the middlemen.

For that matter, consumers create businesses, too.

Actually it's the investment of business that makes it possible for corporations to create a product that consumers will WANT to purchase for themselves. Without investment capitol there is no "reality" behind the creative process. Where would Apple be if there were no investors to go behind such creative ideas as the i-Phone, i-Pad, or i-Tunes? How many consumers have a desire to own an Blu-Ray player, Compact Disc, LCD or Plasma because of the investments behind the creation?