Right to work states

As soon as I ended the post to you I went to Red State Blog. Right to work was their first article. They are kind of middle of the road not as far right as I would like, but they had a good article anyway.

http://www.redstate.com/jasonahart/2012/12/11/reality-vs-union-right-to-work-is-wrong-infographic/

Middle of the road? REDState? Really...? :banghead:

http://www.therepublic.com/view/local_story/LETTER__1324962908

This article uses statistics to debunk it. Of course, if you go into research with an agenda already desired, you're likely to find some way to prove your case. I just fail to see how stripping rights away from individuals in a particular industry helps anyone but the top executives of the companies lining more money into their overseas bank accounts by hiring employees who take less money (and are probably less qualified.)
 
Obama employs duplicity concerning civil liberties. He is all for the civil liberty of gays getting married, yet he is against a worker having the civil liberty not to join a union. Hypocrisy.

I'm not sure how marriage equality has anything to do with union rights. That's not really hypocritical. They are two completely different things.

No one forces you to go into a particular trade or job. Companies decide to hire people in unions, there's never been a REQUIREMENT to be in a union. People form the unions because they want to, overwhelmingly, in a particular trade to protect their rights. If enough people dropped out of the union, they could very well take over the jobs at a company, but how many people do or even want to?
 
Here's some interesting numbers.

18 of the 24 Right to Work States are classified as Red States according to the latest presidential election. What does that tell us?
 

Attachments

Here's some interesting numbers.

18 of the 24 Right to Work States are classified as Red States according to the latest presidential election. What does that tell us?

It's all about corporations and the wigs who run them. They line their pockets while making the lower 99% lose. If you can't see the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer, just look at inflation vs minimum wage increases. They are wildly out of proportion. The price of goods and basic living essentials keep increasing at a faster rate vs average income. The scale of "owners" of US money has been wildly tipping in one way over the past 20 years. In the 70s, a worked on mininum wage could afford a 2 bedroom apartment. I'd like to see you try that today.
 
Middle of the road? REDState? Really...? :banghead:

http://www.therepublic.com/view/local_story/LETTER__1324962908

This article uses statistics to debunk it. Of course, if you go into research with an agenda already desired, you're likely to find some way to prove your case.
Of course theonions never do that do they?

I just fail to see how stripping rights away from individuals
what rights are you stripping away when you give another person thr right to ork.

in a particular industry helps anyone but the top executives of the companies lining more money into their overseas bank accounts by hiring employees who take less money (and are probably less qualified.)

Ok Jax old buddy, let me open up my guts to you.
Every day it seems like we lose more and more of our freedom. Telling me I have to join a union as terms of employ is taking away one of my freedoms
. When I was much younger I got a job welding in a factory. They had a union. RI was a force to pay state. I had never worked for a union shop, so did not know what to expect. When the contact time came around the union officials held there meeting behind closed doors. That didn’t seem right to me but was told don’t ask question, if you value your car, health, or family. They proudly announced after negotiation with the company that they got us XX% increase. When my pay check cane it was half of what I taught I was getting. When I enquired I was met with a cold stare and told that the other half went into the pension fund. I had to make more enemies to get to look at the pension fund. Found out that each contract time more money went into the pension fund, but our return percentage kept going down. On more investigation which I almost got beat up for, found out that was because instead of letting our pension fund draw interest in the bank, they wanted to invest it into financial deals that would get us some big interest. Oh! For heaven’s sake who could have ever guessed that big land deal was going to go bust. Now I find that our area committee man who is paid by my dues makes 5 times more than our highest paid worker. I never did find out what is boss made, but did know that he had a private jet at his disposal. When I had my months in to quality for a pension, I left the company. Then I find out that yes you had the months but you forgot to deduct the days for vacation, you just miss your pension by a few days. A few years later the union’s high demands forced the company out of business. My story is by no means isolated. Others have told me similar stories. Just in the news lately a school teacher is convicted of some sex crime, so is not allowed around children, but because of the union he goes to the library every day, and still collects his pay from the tax payers. I am not against unions, I against being force. If you are forced to join a union nothing will change. Make it a right to work state and the unions will be forced to clean up their act or get kicked out. I could write three times as much, but my one finger is getting tired,
 
It's all about corporations and the wigs who run them. They line their pockets while making the lower 99% lose. If you can't see the rich keep getting richer while the poor keep getting poorer, just look at inflation vs minimum wage increases. They are wildly out of proportion. The price of goods and basic living essentials keep increasing at a faster rate vs average income. The scale of "owners" of US money has been wildly tipping in one way over the past 20 years. In the 70s, a worked on mininum wage could afford a 2 bedroom apartment. I'd like to see you try that today.


While some of what you say is true we disagree on the cause. I make very little, probably under the poverty level, but I don’t envy the guy that has more. What I do have I worked very hard for. I don’t envy the guy that made it honestly, and I especially don’t envy the guy that made it dishonestly. I would much rather have less honestly. We even have dishonest poor people, did you know that? A woman I know gets her hair done with a very expensive hair do, and has her nails done regularly. She also receives food stamps. Is that honest? We will never have just honest people, and no amount of laws is going to change that.

Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle? It states that if you took all the money in the US and divided it equally between everyone, that in ten years or less every one that was rich, would be rich again, and everyone that was poor would be poor and the rest of us would be in the middle again. Is that true, well of course it never has been proven, but look at all the lottery winners that are poor again. It has been said that the lottery is a tax on people that are not good at math.
 
Dick--
I don't know where you get this stuff.

Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle? It states that if you took all the money in the US and divided it equally between everyone, that in ten years or less every one that was rich, would be rich again, and everyone that was poor would be poor and the rest of us would be in the middle again. Is that true, well of course it never has been proven, but look at all the lottery winners that are poor again. It has been said that the lottery is a tax on people that are not good at math.

The Peter Principle is a philosophy regarding management within a company that one will rise to their own level of incompetence.

The Peter Principle is a belief that, in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise, which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology."
The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter's Corollary states that "n time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." "Managing upward" is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly manipulate his or her superiors in order to prevent them from interfering with the subordinate's productive activity or to generally limit the damage done by the superiors' incompetence.

Have you been watching to much Fox News?
 
Dick--
I don't know where you get this stuff.



The Peter Principle is a philosophy regarding management within a company that one will rise to their own level of incompetence.

The Peter Principle is a belief that, in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence." In more formal parlance, the effect could be stated as: employees tend to be given more authority until they cannot continue to work competently. It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise, which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology."
The principle holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Eventually they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. Peter's Corollary states that "n time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out its duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence." "Managing upward" is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly manipulate his or her superiors in order to prevent them from interfering with the subordinate's productive activity or to generally limit the damage done by the superiors' incompetence.


Have you been watching to much Fox News?


You got me. Your right, I got thr wrong name. Its been years since I read the two different principles. I dpn't even remember the name of the other one. Good catch.
 
While some of what you say is true we disagree on the cause. I make very little, probably under the poverty level, but I don’t envy the guy that has more. What I do have I worked very hard for. I don’t envy the guy that made it honestly, and I especially don’t envy the guy that made it dishonestly. I would much rather have less honestly. We even have dishonest poor people, did you know that? A woman I know gets her hair done with a very expensive hair do, and has her nails done regularly. She also receives food stamps. Is that honest? We will never have just honest people, and no amount of laws is going to change that.

Have you ever heard of the Peter Principle? It states that if you took all the money in the US and divided it equally between everyone, that in ten years or less every one that was rich, would be rich again, and everyone that was poor would be poor and the rest of us would be in the middle again. Is that true, well of course it never has been proven, but look at all the lottery winners that are poor again. It has been said that the lottery is a tax on people that are not good at math.

Of course we have dishonest poor people, and we have honest rich people, unfortunately, both are the minority from my own experience.

I also think you are still missing my point. People you employ should be paid when business is good. Why not? Why should they make far far less of an increase than you? It has been going this way for years and years and the gap has been increasing. You don't think has contributed to the economy being in it's current condition? When, 30 years ago your money went a lot further than today. That's because there is less of it being spent and more of it being hoarded by the rich overseas.
 
Bull's eye. :p

This going to shock you both! I don't watch any TV at all.
I read about the Peter Principle in college, that was around 30 years ago.
Do you guys know the name of the money principle that I mention in the earlier post, I don't remember, that was also many years ago.
 
This going to shock you both! I don't watch any TV at all.

Watching or reading makes no difference. You clearly get your information from the foreign-owned media source Fox News, and other far-right "news" organizations. If you doubt this, simply review the links that you've provided in various posts.

On topic - unions have their good points and bad points. They tend to protect workers that should be fired, they cost money in the form of dues, and they donate money to political campaigns.

They also provide protection to workers that truly deserve it, keep companies honest, and increase the quality of life for lower and middle class workers by demanding that companies pair a fair wage and benefits.

Right to work states tend to have lower unemployment but also lower average wages. If picking up and moving was easy, I would always choose to live in a non-right to work state.
 
All politicians should be put on minimum wage for two months leading up to voting in a "Right to work" bill and see where that takes the vote.
 
Watching or reading makes no difference. You clearly get your information from the foreign-owned media source Fox News, and other far-right "news" organizations. If you doubt this, simply review the links that you've provided in various posts.

On topic - unions have their good points and bad points. They tend to protect workers that should be fired, they cost money in the form of dues, and they donate money to political campaigns.

They also provide protection to workers that truly deserve it, keep companies honest, and increase the quality of life for lower and middle class workers by demanding that companies pair a fair wage and benefits.

Right to work states tend to have lower unemployment but also lower average wages. If picking up and moving was easy, I would always choose to live in a non-right to work state.

Well spoken. I agree with most of it. We do have a difference preference. If I had a choice I would want to work in a right to work state even at lower wages. I might even work for a company that had a union.
If I wanted to debate from the other side I could tell you horror stories told me from grandparents about the horrible working conditions in the woolen mills that union help to clean up, in Woonsocket, RI were I was born
 
Watching or reading makes no difference. You clearly get your information from the foreign-owned media source Fox News, and other far-right "news" organizations. If you doubt this, simply review the links that you've provided in various posts.

On topic - unions have their good points and bad points. They tend to protect workers that should be fired, they cost money in the form of dues, and they donate money to political campaigns.

They also provide protection to workers that truly deserve it, keep companies honest, and increase the quality of life for lower and middle class workers by demanding that companies pair a fair wage and benefits.

Right to work states tend to have lower unemployment but also lower average wages. If picking up and moving was easy, I would always choose to live in a non-right to work state.

Ps. I certainly do read fox but all the others. Left and right. Listen to talk radio, left and right, read threads left and right, read blogs left and right, then come to my own conclusion.
 
I like this quote: “Always remember what you goal is, but it’s hard to remember that your goal was to drain the swamp when you are up to your ear in alligators”. I don’t remember where I got it anybody know?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom