Catering to unions

Catering to unions

There are 90 comments on the Lowell Sun story from Oct 12, 2009, titled Catering to unions. In it, Lowell Sun reports that:

Some people believe union workers' endorsements don't mean anything in the outcome of political races.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Lowell Sun.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
whatnow

Sterling, MA

#1 Oct 12, 2009
Well said; thank for articulating that for us. Who wrote this?
Voter

Northborough, MA

#2 Oct 12, 2009
I rather see a list of the campaign contributions. Who gave money to the politician and how much $$$$ was it.
agreed

Concord, MA

#3 Oct 12, 2009
Excellent points, Lowell Sun editorial board. To that I would add that without term limits we are stuck with corrupt politicians. There is plenty of evidence that there is a direct correlation between by an organization increasing dollar amounts to a candidate and that candidate's willingness to vote for legislation in the organization's favor.

An example of this is Rep. Cory Atkins. This has been documented by public watchdog groups. And what about rich private donors that contribute money and other services to candidates? Corporate sponsorship degrades the system too.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#4 Oct 12, 2009
Unions are the cancer that are hurting once major corporations, cities, towns, and states all over this country. Sign up if you want to. Even Chelmsford said that a teacher fell through the floor in a building because the insulation in the basement was installed upside down and created a moisture situation that cause the floors to rot. Look for the union label:

I provided this link because it shows that the textile industry once thrived in this country. It's dead here now. Automobile manufacturing is dead too, they just don't know it yet.
Jorge

San Juan, Puerto Rico

#5 Oct 12, 2009
Labor organizations have battled for the 8 hour/40 a week and other rights.

Thanks, labor movement.

Jorge de P.Rico
Eric Stratton the III

Virginia Beach, VA

#6 Oct 12, 2009
Jorge, Unions were a great thing a long time ago but the laws, Employee Rights Acts, OSHA and many other labor laws have made them an anachronism. They spend all there time on the worst 10% of members, promote mediocrity and are so corrupt at the top that they might as well be back in the Tamany Hall Days. The NEA, AFT, AFL-CIO constantly promote ideas that they general members would never support but in the end they vote with the wallets in their back pockets and we continue to not be as competitive internationally due to silly high pay for minor work. They were a good idea at one time, a good cause at one time but they are not anymore.
Union Yes

Hampton, NH

#7 Oct 12, 2009
Jorge wrote:
Labor organizations have battled for the 8 hour/40 a week and other rights.
Thanks, labor movement.
Jorge de P.Rico
Living a very comfortable retirement thanks to unions.

“From The Desert To The Sea”

Since: Sep 09

To All Across The Lands

#8 Oct 12, 2009
Its true Unions have done many great things for the people when they were for the people. The effects of the Union in California have been significant in its downfall, in my opinion. I also notice how Unions can switch endorsements to the candidate they feel will cater to them the most. I'm just not sure what can be done besides busting up the Unions, like that's going to happen.
Jorge

San Juan, Puerto Rico

#9 Oct 12, 2009
Union Yes wrote:
<quoted text>Living a very comfortable retirement thanks to unions.
Good for you. I hope you paid your dues when you were working.
lowellmyke

Lowell, MA

#10 Oct 12, 2009
Eric Stratton the III wrote:
Jorge, Unions were a great thing a long time ago but the laws, Employee Rights Acts, OSHA and many other labor laws have made them an anachronism. They spend all there time on the worst 10% of members, promote mediocrity and are so corrupt at the top that they might as well be back in the Tamany Hall Days. The NEA, AFT, AFL-CIO constantly promote ideas that they general members would never support but in the end they vote with the wallets in their back pockets and we continue to not be as competitive internationally due to silly high pay for minor work. They were a good idea at one time, a good cause at one time but they are not anymore.
where do you think the middle class came from? keep attacking the unions we are not going anywhere thank god for the union movement a strong union workforce means better pay healthcare and pension for workers in this country attack corporate america if you will we are growing in numbers for a reason godbless the union worker.......go teamsters
Eric Stratton the III

Virginia Beach, VA

#11 Oct 12, 2009
lowellmyke wrote:
<quoted text>where do you think the middle class came from? keep attacking the unions we are not going anywhere thank god for the union movement a strong union workforce means better pay healthcare and pension for workers in this country attack corporate america if you will we are growing in numbers for a reason godbless the union worker.......go teamsters
lol, you think Unions are the reason for the Middle Class? Hmm..historians might disagree with you on that but you go with it. Also, read the post in context, they were a good thing, now they are not. They support the mediocre, I have watched there great work on the Big Dig and in the schools. Fantastic job Unions! ;) They spend all of their money and time on the same 10% over and over again who if they were not Union Members would have and should have been fired.
Unions were a good thing a long time ago, they put themselves out of business with Employees Rights Act, OSHA and the tons of other laws that protect workers now. The top echelons of Unions are corrupt, I had to work for one, they are a joke.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#12 Oct 13, 2009
lowellmyke wrote:
<quoted text>where do you think the middle class came from?
A more important question is where are they going. I always viewed a middle class individual as a college grad with a profession. Someone that falls into the $75,000 to $150,000 income range. A person who isn't likely to be in a union but who often has union people working for him/her. The middle class came from the colleges and from young men and women with an entrepreneurial spirit who took the risks and succeeded.

As an older guy, I have worked for union shops (GE in Lowell, the USPS in Chelmsford) and have known many who worked in the textile and shoe industries before me. They were mostly minimum wage jobs. They were high stress piece work companies for the most part. No middle class came from those union jobs unless you were in company management and those weren't union jobs. In fact, unions are what drove these jobs out of this country, the are what brough the automobile manufacturers to their knees. Today the unions are causing job losses in every city and town in this state and others. Poorly negotiated "contractual agreements" and "prevailing wage" are two of the worst things that came from the unions. The most important thing is their ability to kill jobs everywhere and drive entire industries overseas.
The Patriot

United States

#13 Oct 13, 2009
I can tell you one thing without unions every town and city in the USA this year would of cut pay and benefits of workers. People would be let go because of one thing or another. Unions are neccessary and jobs that pick up and leave are usually the fault of the government.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#14 Oct 13, 2009
The Patriot wrote:
Unions are neccessary and jobs that pick up and leave are usually the fault of the government.
The only way that the government can be faulted is if you believe the U.S. should be a closed society. Because we have world trade those industries that packed up and left did so because they couldn't compete globally. Please explain how the government is responsible for the failure of GM & Chrysler? Explain how it's their fault that textile and shoe industries were forced to leave?
If you want to blame someone other than the unions you have to look no further than the American people. A shopper would go into a store to buy a shirt. The shirt made in the U.S. was $40. Right next to it was a shirt imported from Malaysia, same quality but it was $12.50. Americans chose the shirt for $12.50. Sure, the government could have put a $27.50 import tax on the Malaysian shirt but what would that solve. All it would do is insure that American's paid more than 3 times as much for their needs. Just think if GM priced their vehicles so that they could be profitable only the very wealthy would be able to afford one. The manufacturing process and materials costs are similar at both GM and Toyota, the real difference between them is that one is a union shop and is on taxpayer welfare, the other is not.
Jorge

San Juan, Puerto Rico

#15 Oct 13, 2009
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way that the government can be faulted is if you believe the U.S. should be a closed society. Because we have world trade those industries that packed up and left did so because they couldn't compete globally. Please explain how the government is responsible for the failure of GM & Chrysler? Explain how it's their fault that textile and shoe industries were forced to leave?
If you want to blame someone other than the unions you have to look no further than the American people. A shopper would go into a store to buy a shirt. The shirt made in the U.S. was $40. Right next to it was a shirt imported from Malaysia, same quality but it was $12.50. Americans chose the shirt for $12.50. Sure, the government could have put a $27.50 import tax on the Malaysian shirt but what would that solve. All it would do is insure that American's paid more than 3 times as much for their needs. Just think if GM priced their vehicles so that they could be profitable only the very wealthy would be able to afford one. The manufacturing process and materials costs are similar at both GM and Toyota, the real difference between them is that one is a union shop and is on taxpayer welfare, the other is not.
Are you for real?
Bill Smith

Charleston, SC

#16 Oct 13, 2009
I don't have a problem with unions, but employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason.
Bill Smith

Charleston, SC

#17 Oct 13, 2009
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way that the government can be faulted is if you believe the U.S. should be a closed society. Because we have world trade those industries that packed up and left did so because they couldn't compete globally. Please explain how the government is responsible for the failure of GM & Chrysler? Explain how it's their fault that textile and shoe industries were forced to leave?
If you want to blame someone other than the unions you have to look no further than the American people. A shopper would go into a store to buy a shirt. The shirt made in the U.S. was $40. Right next to it was a shirt imported from Malaysia, same quality but it was $12.50. Americans chose the shirt for $12.50. Sure, the government could have put a $27.50 import tax on the Malaysian shirt but what would that solve. All it would do is insure that American's paid more than 3 times as much for their needs. Just think if GM priced their vehicles so that they could be profitable only the very wealthy would be able to afford one. The manufacturing process and materials costs are similar at both GM and Toyota, the real difference between them is that one is a union shop and is on taxpayer welfare, the other is not.
Yes it is the governments fault. Heavy regulations and heavy taxation are what made the companies move.
Jorge

San Juan, Puerto Rico

#19 Oct 13, 2009
Bill Smith wrote:
I don't have a problem with unions, but employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason.
Capriciously?
Jorge

San Juan, Puerto Rico

#20 Oct 13, 2009
Bill Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is the governments fault. Heavy regulations and heavy taxation are what made the companies move.
It just makes my head spin, how fast those company's shareholders; would set shop in the moon or Mars, if they discover an even more "cost effective" way for profit.

It has nothing to do with government.

And if you're so in love with "those poor companies" and abhore our federal and state goverments; why didn't you follow them to wherever?

Jorge de P.Rico
Bill Smith

Charleston, SC

#21 Oct 13, 2009
Jorge wrote:
<quoted text>
It just makes my head spin, how fast those company's shareholders; would set shop in the moon or Mars, if they discover an even more "cost effective" way for profit.
It has nothing to do with government.
And if you're so in love with "those poor companies" and abhore our federal and state goverments; why didn't you follow them to wherever?
Jorge de P.Rico
Ah, the old childish "support fascism or leave" statement.

Remember, corporations are creations of the state and are in bed with government. They would not exist in a real free market, something we have never had. We were close under the Articles of Confederation.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

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.

Michael Capuano Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Two House Dems say it's time to dump Pelosi (Apr '15) Apr '15 Teddy 8
News Pittsfield mayor encouraged by Baker efforts fo... (Jan '15) Jan '15 Praxis33 6
News Faust Letter to Mass. Representatives Cautions ... (Jan '15) Jan '15 wild child 1
News Barney Frank Challenges GOP's 'Too Big to Fail'... (Jul '14) Jul '14 Suzanne Lunt 1
News Future homebuyers could feel the pinch from pla... (Aug '13) Sep '13 fingiswold 36
News Closing Fannie, Freddie could boost mortgage rates (Aug '13) Sep '13 Sebrina Wintringham 49
News Coakley addresses top issues during visit - Sen... (Dec '09) Mar '13 Lynch 33
More from around the web