Ron Paul potential GOP presidential candidate?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Be careful how you use the word "right". It ain't a

right. It would have become an entitlement almost

with that dumb card check bill. Thank God that

didn't happen.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RobertNashville]

While I don't think anyone is entitled to anything from anyone else without their consent, the government should not be able to say who we can and can not be associated with. Collective bargaining is something I'm not a big fan of, but in the Private sector I believe it is a right that should be defended. As for the public sector, public workers are accepting money forcefully taken(stolen) from the private sector(productive americans) and as far as I'm concerned they shouldn't even be able to negotiate pay or benefits period.

Well, as 6.8 AR already stated, collective bargaining isn't a right.

In any case, while I haven't studied WI's proposals in detail, I doubt that the changes would forbid the existence of a union; simply that no one can be forced to join one (as is the case in a closed shop) and, such as in the case of teachers, school districts would not be required to recognize the teachers union as having the power to bargain on behalf of teachers. That doesn't mean the union can't exist and do its other "union" stuff.

[dlm37015]

i think the big thing is gov walker does not want to take union dues out of their paychecks

he wants the union members to pay the union thats why the union is so upset

you dont here that in the news

[Guest 6.8 AR]

One of their provisions was that unions may exist, except it has to be certified each year, but

no collective bargaining. The only real value in a union is to strangle it's adversary and take it's

members' dues. Since it should never be allowed to strangle anything and the dues collected

go to some of the most ridiculous places except benefit members, it has no real need to exist.

Notwithstanding the argument that some employers are allegedly SOB's, unions serve no real

purpose except to leech off the membership. The argument that we needed them because

of child labor and working long hours have been dealt with long ago by law.

The government doesn't have any right to tell you or I who we can associate with, but this

isn't about that. Associations and fiduciaries are totally different things. A union is supposedly

a fiduciary relationship, as far as I am concerned, like an attorney/ client or a broker/buyer,

broker/seller relationship in a real estate transaction. Contract law for those examples.

Certain labor laws define or protect the union relationship.

You work for who pays your paycheck. If you don't like the arrangement between you and

your employer, find another job.

[E4 No More]

One of their provisions was that unions may exist, except it has to be certified each year, but

no collective bargaining. The only real value in a union is to strangle it's adversary and take it's

members' dues. Since it should never be allowed to strangle anything and the dues collected

go to some of the most ridiculous places except benefit members, it has no real need to exist.

Notwithstanding the argument that some employers are allegedly SOB's, unions serve no real

purpose except to leech off the membership. The argument that we needed them because

of child labor and working long hours have been dealt with long ago by law.

The government doesn't have any right to tell you or I who we can associate with, but this

isn't about that. Associations and fiduciaries are totally different things. A union is supposedly

a fiduciary relationship, as far as I am concerned, like an attorney/ client or a broker/buyer,

broker/seller relationship in a real estate transaction. Contract law for those examples.

Certain labor laws define or protect the union relationship.

You work for who pays your paycheck. If you don't like the arrangement between you and

your employer, find another job.

Yeah, because it's that easy - particularly in this economy.

[RobertNashville]

Yeah, because it's that easy - particularly in this economy.

What's "easy" have to do with anything?

Yes...times are rough right now...they've been rough before and they'll be rough again but a rough economy doesn't suddenly obligate anyone to give someone else a job and that's most especially so when the "someone" has to take money by force from my pocket to pay another person's salary.

People have to make choices and live with the consequences of those choices; even if none of the choices they have are what they want and that's true whether you are talking about a job or about life in general.

Edited March 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

What's "easy" have to do with anything?

Yes...times are rough right now...they've been rough before and they'll be rough again but a rough economy doesn't suddenly obligate anyone to give someone else a job and that's most especially so when the "someone" has to take money by force from my pocket to pay another person's salary.

People have to make choices and live with the consequences of those choices; even if none of the choices they have are what they want and that's true whether you are talking about a job or about life in general.

What's taking money from your pocket got to do with what I said?

I don't like unions because I think they've gone too far: however, businesses don't do the right thing either. That leaves the government who's primary purpose is to protect its people, and that means being no respecter of businesses. Unfortunately, we have way too many politicians and employers who think the Preamble of The Constitution states "We, the corporations of the United States of America...."

[RobertNashville]

What's taking money from your pocket got to do with what I said?

I don't like unions because I think they've gone too far: however, businesses don't do the right thing either. That leaves the government who's primary purpose is to protect its people, and that means being no respecter of businesses. Unfortunately, we have way too many politicians and employers who think the Preamble of The Constitution states "We, the corporations of the United States of America...."

What is the "right thing" businesses is supposed to do that you don't feel they are doing? I really don't know where you are coming from/what point you are trying to make or what it has to do with what's happening in WI or other states right now.

Businesses exist to serve the needs of the business and its owners...peirod...they have no other obligation.

The principle is simple, if a person doesn't like the arrangement they have with their current employer they need to either go somewhere else, start their own business or shut up and live with the hand they've been dealt (and usually the hand they've be dealt is 99% a result of their own choices, good or bad)...that's what public and private employees in WI need to do and in every other state for that matter.

[E4 No More]

What is the "right thing" businesses is supposed to do that you don't feel they are doing? I really don't know where you are coming from/what point you are trying to make or what it has to do with what's happening in WI or other states right now.

Businesses exist to serve the needs of the business and its owners...peirod...they have no other obligation.

The principle is simple, if a person doesn't like the arrangement they have with their current employer they need to either go somewhere else, start their own business or shut up and live with the hand they've been dealt (and usually the hand they've be dealt is 99% a result of their own choices, good or bad)...that's what public and private employees in WI need to do and in every other state for that matter.

If you don't understand then why do you comment?

If businesses were so trustworthy there wouldn't have been unions to begin with nor businesses such as Enron.

I would also guess that every member on here has indirectly benefitted from a union in their lifetime including you.

[RobertNashville]

I reply because this is a discussion forum.

You shouldn't go around making assumptions about people...no one in my family nor have I ever be part of a union and no, I've never been "benefited" by one.

Where did I say businesses were "trustworthy"? What does that have to do with anything anyway?

A lot of employees aren't "trustworthy" either which is why businesses should be able to fire them and, when a business isn't being trustworthy, a employee can and should quit and go somewhere else; that's a major part of how free enterprise works and it works pretty damn well, despite its flaws.

So unions ONCE served a purpose 90 years ago; so did the horse and buggy and covered wagons but I have no desire to travel across country in one.

Unions are nothing more than communist organizations - I will never voluntarily associate with a organization that espouses communist principles. I believe people should be responsible for themselves and that includes who they work if and under what conditions THEY and only they negotiate with an employer.

Edited March 2, 2011 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

I reply because this is a discussion forum.

You shouldn't go around making assumptions about people...no one in my family nor have I ever be part of a union and no, I've never been "benefited" by one.

Where did I say businesses were "trustworthy"? What does that have to do with anything anyway?

A lot of employees aren't "trustworthy" either which is why businesses should be able to fire them and, when a business isn't being trustworthy, a employee can and should quit and go somewhere else; that's a major part of how free enterprise works and it works pretty damn well, despite its flaws.

So unions ONCE served a purpose 90 years ago; so did the horse and buggy and covered wagons but I have no desire to travel across country in one.

Unions are nothing more than communist organizations - I will never voluntarily associate with a organization that espouses communist principles. I believe people should be responsible for themselves and that includes who they work if and under what conditions THEY and only they negotiate with an employer.

What I said was, "I would also guess that every member on here has indirectly benefitted from a union in their lifetime including you."

To claim that you haven't indirectly benefitted from a union is quite disingenuous. The threat of unionization sparked employers to extend benefits and pay that they wouldn't have otherwise.

[mikegideon]

I have benefitted indirectly. Moved to a union town (St. Louis), which had better salary and benefit packages for my field. When I was recruited back to Nashville, my salary history made a difference in what I was able to negotiate here. I never belonged to the union.

[RobertNashville]

What I said was, "I would also guess that every member on here has indirectly benefitted from a union in their lifetime including you."

To claim that you haven't indirectly benefitted from a union is quite disingenuous. The threat of unionization sparked employers to extend benefits and pay that they wouldn't have otherwise.

For someone who claims to not like unions you are certainly making a lot of posts in defense of them.

I know what you said and while I can't speak for others here, unions have never done anything for me or any member of my family either directly or indirectly...period...you can believe otherwise of you wish; you'll just be wrong.

Whatever truly useful purpose they MAY have served a century ago HAS LONG PAST as have the reasons for their existence. Unions are anathema to the very concept of free enterprise; they are, in microcosm, the exact opposite of the very ideals of freedom and liberty and personal responsibility.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If you want to single out an impact made by union influence, you might also want to single out oil,

insurance, regulatory and many others. Sure, I've personally benefitted directly and indirectly from

union influence. I've said it, before. I am a union member, for what that's worth, in this discussion.

Mike's point is a valid one due to the way salary ranges work within regions, even though he is a

professional. That's the way market influences work, not just on one range, but all to a degree.

I think Jewell is right except it might be have been better stated that we have all benefitted and

suffered in the union experience. When the public sector is held hostage by unions and the taxpayer

is stuck with the bill without much say in the process, I'd say that is "theft by politician" and many

should go to jail for it.

Rush just said something on his show that stuck with me. He was talking about Wisconsin, might

as well been everywhere, and asked a question to the listeners(us). I'm paraphrasing here.

"Who are the unions against in this deal? Teachers against taxpayers, or teachers against students.

Money and benefits are what they want, but over the years, since the sixties, every time money

has been increased, scores have continued downward. How is money going to fix the problem?

In the private sector when money is injected there is an expectation of achievement of some kind.

What about public sector spending? Where is the achievement? Pretty expensive day care."

Otherwise, get better results before you come screaming for more money. The Federal School

System is broke. Show your value before you ask for money. If it really is "for the children" prove

it!

I also meant to say individually some may have benefitted from unions, but collectively, and I choke

on that word, most have suffered from it. Just look at our federal budget.

Has nothing to do with all the fine teachers and their spouses.

Edited March 2, 2011 by 6.8 AR

[mikegideon]

I do need to make this clear. I'm not a fan of typical unions. They do tend to bring up pay and benefit standards, and then they overreach like every other organized group on the friggin' planet.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I knew that:D

[E4 No More]

For someone who claims to not like unions you are certainly making a lot of posts in defense of them.

I know what you said and while I can't speak for others here, unions have never done anything for me or any member of my family either directly or indirectly...period...you can believe otherwise of you wish; you'll just be wrong.

Whatever truly useful purpose they MAY have served a century ago HAS LONG PAST as have the reasons for their existence. Unions are anathema to the very concept of free enterprise; they are, in microcosm, the exact opposite of the very ideals of freedom and liberty and personal responsibility.

Denial isn't a river in Egypt. Saying that unions have done nothing for you is a bunch of crap, IMHO.

If you'll notice I'm not arguing for or against unions. I don't like them in their current form, but I also don't like businesses having a free reign to do whatever they want either because the government takes a Laissez Faire approach in the name of a free market.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

A lot of businesses have been corrupted as well. That's true. A union is not even involved in

some of those situations, but the company that plays by the wrong rules can be challenged

and a lot have been. The tax system corrupts us all, doesn't it? Incentives for a company to

do business a certain way is just as corrupt as almost anything a union does. It takes the general

idea of that company and bends it to meet a particular political need, or is a lobbyist taking

some corporate welfare. anyway you look at it, it is still corruption.

All you can ever work towards is justice, and kill corruption every chance you can.

[RobertNashville]

Denial isn't a river in Egypt. Saying that unions have done nothing for you is a bunch of crap, IMHO.

If you'll notice I'm not arguing for or against unions. I don't like them in their current form, but I also don't like businesses having a free reign to do whatever they want either because the government takes a Laissez Faire approach in the name of a free market.

You are free to your opinion, even thought it's wrong and assuming you know anything about me or my family and how we have or haven't benefited from unions is what is truly a bunch of crap IMHO.

Businesses have "free reign" only so long as their employees are willing to put up with it and if employees are willing to put up with it then they deserve exactly what they get.

[kieefer]

well, this thread sure has swerved off track.

[E4 No More]

You are free to your opinion, even thought it's wrong and assuming you know anything about me or my family and how we have or haven't benefited from unions is what is truly a bunch of crap IMHO.

Businesses have "free reign" only so long as their employees are willing to put up with it and if employees are willing to put up with it then they deserve exactly what they get.

[RobertNashville]

^ Really intelligent response.

When it comes to unions, 6.8AR probably said it best...

"You work for who pays your paycheck. If you don't like the arrangement between you and your employer, find another job".

That pretty well sums up free enterprise as well as personal liberty and responsibility and precisely what a union, whether purposely or unintentionally, will ultimately undermine.

Edited March 3, 2011 by RobertNashville

[E4 No More]

^ Really intelligent response.

When it comes to unions, 6.8AR probably said it best...

"You work for who pays your paycheck. If you don't like the arrangement between you and your employer, find another job".

That pretty well sums up free enterprise as well as personal liberty and responsibility and precisely what a union, whether purposely or unintentionally, will ultimately undermine.

Sorry, just had to put things in terms you'd understand.

[RobertNashville]

Sorry, just had to put things in terms you'd understand.

Puerile responses (such as in post 121) are not an effective substitute for substantive discussion.

EDIT:

While you and I are obviously never going agree on "unions", I'm sure we would agree on many other issues...sorry if I offended you in any way.

Edited March 3, 2011 by RobertNashville