Pam

South Pittsburg, TN

#58816 Dec 12, 2012
The Original Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooo, workplaces in Michigan DO have a choice to have a collective bargaining agreement, then? Or is all this rhetoric about "choice" just smoke and mirrors?
Again, if workers in Michigan don't have a choice but to join a union, then why is the number of union workers in Michigan not 100%?
It's law. LOL Deal with it! Well, actually, you don't have to unless you live in Michigan.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#58817 Dec 12, 2012
I should have added that the Power of the Union is in the Number of Members.
Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#58818 Dec 12, 2012
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> Drastically cut taxes year upon year from 1980 forward, then promise no cuts in popular programs to get the votes for reelection and you get what we have. The American population is getting older and healthcare costs are going to be higher for years to come. Combine that with the loss of good jobs with benefits, and you have what we are dealing with.
Basicially, we either need higher taxes to fund these programs AND more good paying jobs that pay enough to help fund the treasury, or we go back to pre 1930 America...if you are old, well hurry and die, if you are hungry, well hurry and starve, if you are unemployed, well tough luck !
Simple choice starkly stated.
Nothing about spending? Clinton's entire budget in 1991 was 1.2 trillion. Today, that's just the deficit. How can you have an intelligent discussion without including anything about spending.

You have made the case for going back to 91% tax rates. Ok, as long as we go back to that era's spending rate.

Unemployed, tough luck? How about unemployed, and we'll pay you to stay that way.

And when you stop looking, we won't count you anymore so the unemployment rate goes down, making it look - to stupid people at least - like your policies are working.

You have to admit, we DO have a spending problem. And your tax the rich isn't going to fix it, because all the extra money that taxing the rich is going to bring in is earmarked for his additional spending plans.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#58819 Dec 12, 2012
"Was Mitt Romney's Jeep Ad Really The 'Lie Of The Year'?"

Click here:
http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romneys-jeep-ad-re...
Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#58820 Dec 12, 2012
Dunlapian wrote:
<quoted text>Unions lead the rights and increase the wages of the workers, true not everyone belongs to a Union, but they(non-union) also benefit by what the Unions bargin for.
With Unions getting weaker and weaker so will the American middle class become smaller and smaller.
The "Right to Work" means you can still have a Union but you don't have to be a Union member and you will still get all of the benefits that come with being a Union member. In other words you can just sit back and not pull your own weight and still reap all of the benefits.
Then on top of this you pull out the PRO_CHOICE issue,........you are all over the place. By your "Thought Process", I could just throw out the PRO_CHOICE issue on taxing the 2%, because I choose to tax them.
I wish you WOULD throw out the taxing the 2%, because it's a lie designed to appeal to stupid people. If you were limiting it to ONLY the 2%, you might not get much of an argument. But while you call it the 2%, it includes everyone who makes $250K. People who make 250K are not in the 2%. They are well into the 98%.

But then your party thrives on lies and stupid people.

C'mon workers of America. Get behind Jesse Jackson who called for a one day nationwide strike. But let's not be pussies about this. Go on strike for a month. That'll teach'em. In fact, make it six months. Or a year. That'll bring those corporate nazi's to their knees.

Power to the people!! Yeah!!!!!

Kommrades, pay attention to early 20th century Russia, and what the proletariat did to the Czars. They really showed them who's boss.

By the way, how'd that all work out?

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#58821 Dec 12, 2012
The Original Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Soooo, workplaces in Michigan DO have a choice to have a collective bargaining agreement, then? Or is all this rhetoric about "choice" just smoke and mirrors?
Again, if workers in Michigan don't have a choice but to join a union, then why is the number of union workers in Michigan not 100%?
Because every workplace is NOT Unionized. A "Right To Work" State means that you do NOT have to join the Union at a Unionized Workplace, in order to work there, in that State...that you can still work at a Unionized Workplace without joining the Union, IF it is a Unionized workplace...which weakens the Union.
In a State that ISN'T a "Right to work" State, You are required to join the Union, in order to work at a Unionized workplace, which makes the Union stronger and gives the Union more bargaining power for the Workers, with that Company Workplace.
Again, the strength of the Union's power to help the Workers, is in the Number of Members in any Unionized Workplace.
Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#58822 Dec 12, 2012
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> I agree ! I guess they never read the bill...I did, every LONG page of it and I knew this was in there...if they had done their jobs they would have too. Providing 40 MILLION people with health insurance costs money, and it will yield far reaching benefits. SOMEBODY has to pay for it and this is a part of the funding. But you are right this does show a lot of gall !
Did you read it yesterday? Because if you didn't you read Version 1. They are still writing it.

Did you see the provision that charges everyone $63.00. What page was that on? Because everyone else missed it.

"Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. Itís a new,$63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Obamaís health care overhaul.

"The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#58823 Dec 12, 2012
Correction: In a State that ISN'T a "Right To Work" State, you are NOT required to join the Union, in order to work at a Unionized Workplace...
Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#58824 Dec 12, 2012
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
For every Worker that does NOT join, the Union is made alittle weaker because the Members ARE the Union. To have a strong Union in that particular workplace, every Worker has to be a Union Member.
Forget workers who choose not to join. What I want to see, is how many drop current union membership. THAT will tell you how popular they are.

While we're at it, we should also track how many people are intimidated by union goons. We should setup a website to track union threats, assaults, stabbings and shootings, involving people who choose not to participate in unions.

Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#58825 Dec 12, 2012
Really Sassy wrote:
<quoted text>
Because every workplace is NOT Unionized. A "Right To Work" State means that you do NOT have to join the Union at a Unionized Workplace, in order to work there, in that State...that you can still work at a Unionized Workplace without joining the Union, IF it is a Unionized workplace...which weakens the Union.
In a State that ISN'T a "Right to work" State, You are required to join the Union, in order to work at a Unionized workplace, which makes the Union stronger and gives the Union more bargaining power for the Workers, with that Company Workplace.
Again, the strength of the Union's power to help the Workers, is in the Number of Members in any Unionized Workplace.
C'mon Sassy. OA already knows that. His usual condescending, sarcastic, I'm smarter than you comment didn't work this time.

Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#58826 Dec 12, 2012
Truth Detector wrote:
Appearing on MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Reports on Tuesday, liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus lashed out against passage of Michigan's right-to-work law: "Unions are reeling, and the more states that enact measures like this, the more unions will be reeling....unions aren't going to survive when people have a choice of whether to ante up the dues or to get the benefit of being free-riders."
If unions were such a good thing, youíd think people would be clamoring to join them, and happy to pay the dues without government coercion.
Being FORCED to join sounds, well, communistic doesnít it? But then FORCE is the only thing unions know.
Communistic ? NO. If a potential employee does not want to become a member of the union in a closed shop, they simply need to seek employment elsewhere.
A former long time poster on this thread traced his hatred of unions to the firing of a new employee at a northeast grocery chain because she refused to join the union. I reminded him that Food Fair paid a third higher wages and had more and better benefits for their employees than their non-union competitors, BECAUSE of the union. What she (and he) wanted was the union benefits without paying the price of union dues. I call that GREED not communism.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#58827 Dec 12, 2012
The election is over.Why dwell on negative spam?

Instead if looking for gossip:
See Michelle's secrets she's keeping -Jesse Jackson.
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#58829 Dec 12, 2012
Truth Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you read it yesterday? Because if you didn't you read Version 1. They are still writing it.
Did you see the provision that charges everyone $63.00. What page was that on? Because everyone else missed it.
"Your medical plan is facing an unexpected expense, so you probably are, too. Itís a new,$63-per-head fee to cushion the cost of covering people with pre-existing conditions under President Obamaís health care overhaul.
"The charge, buried in a recent regulation, works out to tens of millions of dollars for the largest companies, employers say. Most of that is likely to be passed on to workers."
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter
The provision regarding a durable medical equipment tax was in the final draft of the bill which I read...ALL the pages of. It was in the bill they voted on that became law. There was a LONG discussion regarding this on the Senate Floor and that discussion revolved around advertising about scooters and battery powered wheelchairs...the advertisments that we all see on television that says you can have one for free if you get a doctor to write a script. Part of the discussion on the floor related to the outrageous price that providers were charging Medicare for these and this prompted a floor speech by several other members of the Senate. This was covered by Cspan.
I do not recall reading about any $63.00 per head fee, but there were almost 3000 pages of the law to digest. I have received nothing about this fee from my group plan yet...but I got a substantial check back last year based on the company I deal with not meeting the spending criteria in the ACA. That will pay for several years of a $63.00 a head cost for myself and those for whom I provide coverage.

Since: Oct 11

Location hidden

#58831 Dec 12, 2012
Somehow, I screwed up up my whole post, in post #58821...so let me try to explain it more clearly.

If every Worker, in a Unionized workplace is required to be a Union Member...which is the requirement in a State that is NOT a "Right To Work" State, the Union is much stronger in that State's Unionized workplaces, which gives the Union more power to bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions for the Employees of those particular Unionized workplaces.

In a "Right to work" State, where EVERY Worker has a choice of whether or not to join the Union, Ther will be workers who will choose NOT to join the Union. Even though the Union-negotiated benefits still apply to those Non-Member Workers, the fact that ALL the Workers are not a Member of the Union, weakens the Union's Bargaining Power in negotiating for all the workers' benefits, wages, and working conditions, with the Company.

The reason for that is that, the only leverage a Union has against the Company, is the threat under the worst case scenario, of pulling all the Workers out on a Workforce Strike. If not all the Workers are Union Members, they will not be pulled off the job, and a Strike, OR the Threat of a Strike, may not be effective enough to cause the Company to negotiate in good faith, to reach a compromise agreement in Contract Negotiations.
And beleve me when I tell you, that most Companies would have workers doing Slave Labor without any Pay, if they could have their way about it, especially when jobs are scarce! The Union is the Workers Advocate to keep the Company from doing just that to their Workers, in each particular Unionized Workplace.!
Overtaxed

Thorn Hill, TN

#58832 Dec 12, 2012
Truth Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish you WOULD throw out the taxing the 2%, because it's a lie designed to appeal to stupid people. If you were limiting it to ONLY the 2%, you might not get much of an argument. But while you call it the 2%, it includes everyone who makes $250K. People who make 250K are not in the 2%. They are well into the 98%.
But then your party thrives on lies and stupid people.
"Well into the 98%" ??? What parallel universe do you live in ?
Beside that, this tax is on income OVER 250k. That looks like the 2% to me !
Jackson

South Pittsburg, TN

#58833 Dec 12, 2012
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> "Well into the 98%" ??? What parallel universe do you live in ?
Beside that, this tax is on income OVER 250k. That looks like the 2% to me !
...and ALL the "revenue" obtained by taxing that 2% with the proposed rate would operate the existing federal government for.....

8 whole days!!!

Wow!

That right there is working on the deficit, and even better - the debt!

Oh, I don't know...when I'm in debt to my eyeballs - I QUIT FRIGGIN SPENDING!
Truth Detector

Jamestown, TN

#58834 Dec 12, 2012
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> Communistic ? NO. If a potential employee does not want to become a member of the union in a closed shop, they simply need to seek employment elsewhere.
As I said, communistic. FORCED.
Overtaxed wrote:
<quoted text> A former long time poster on this thread traced his hatred of unions to the firing of a new employee at a northeast grocery chain because she refused to join the union. I reminded him that Food Fair paid a third higher wages and had more and better benefits for their employees than their non-union competitors, BECAUSE of the union. What she (and he) wanted was the union benefits without paying the price of union dues. I call that GREED not communism.
Wonder if these high wages caused the demise of food Fair?

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#58835 Dec 12, 2012
Jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
...and ALL the "revenue" obtained by taxing that 2% with the proposed rate would operate the existing federal government for.....
8 whole days!!!
Wow!
That right there is working on the deficit, and even better - the debt!
Oh, I don't know...when I'm in debt to my eyeballs - I QUIT FRIGGIN SPENDING!
Unless you get an irrestible itch to start a couple of wars and put them on the credit card, of course.
who cares

United States

#58836 Dec 12, 2012
Who cares
Dunlapian

Dunlap, TN

#58837 Dec 12, 2012
Truth Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish you WOULD throw out the taxing the 2%, because it's a lie designed to appeal to stupid people. If you were limiting it to ONLY the 2%, you might not get much of an argument. But while you call it the 2%, it includes everyone who makes $250K. People who make 250K are not in the 2%. They are well into the 98%.
But then your party thrives on lies and stupid people.
C'mon workers of America. Get behind Jesse Jackson who called for a one day nationwide strike. But let's not be pussies about this. Go on strike for a month. That'll teach'em. In fact, make it six months. Or a year. That'll bring those corporate nazi's to their knees.
Power to the people!! Yeah!!!!!
Kommrades, pay attention to early 20th century Russia, and what the proletariat did to the Czars. They really showed them who's boss.
By the way, how'd that all work out?
Well I see the "Fortune 500" just shifted their stance on being taxed..........now they agree with our President Obama on having their taxes raised........it's better than ending up at the bottom of the cliff. I really don't think the Fortune 500 group are "stupid people".
You want to bring up Russia......well how about Germany mid 1930's old Adolf knew how to stop the Unions.......he executed all Union bosses, now that's a faster way to conrol labor.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Greeneville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
My ex wife 7 min Pauline 4
SGHS girls win 9 min Devil baby 10
What to do when ur car overheets? 10 min Pauline 4
The Big Dig on East Church(near Towering Oaks) 10 min sick landscaper 54
fun thing to do ***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Sep '10) 19 min Pauline 7,537
WHAT R ALL U Silent Viewers Reading??? (Apr '14) 30 min Bree_Z 296
Eat it haters 1 hr Girl 20
***** last post wins ***** 2 hr Dickens1 1,435
damn fourwheelers 17 hr Kohlrabi 11

Flood Warning for Greene County was issued at March 05 at 12:00PM CST

Greeneville Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Greeneville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 5:31 pm PST

ESPN 5:31PM
Report: No resolution in Hardy's NFL meeting
NBC Sports 4:30 AM
Albert Haynesworth to Ndamukong Suh: Do your research on suitors
ESPN 9:17 AM
NFL: Hardy, on exempt list, OK to sign deal
NBC Sports10:23 AM
NFL: Greg Hardy is eligible to sign free agent contract
Bleacher Report11:48 AM
Insider Buzz: NFL Decision on Hardy Reinstatement Coming by Start of Free Agency