which democratic candidate will best stand up to unions?

kerrrry wrote:

Dont get me wrong, there are many useful purposes for a union, but so many sectors of our economy dont need one.

Oh really, what are the useful purposes? Which sector of the economy needs one?

Unions: The tool the lazy use to remain lazy.

Don't know about the Democrats, but it sure wouldn't be Guiliani. He handed over the keys to the city treasury to the municipal unions, and it paid off for him when they endorsed his reelection.

I think mining is a good example. The unions would be good from a safety standpoint- possibly. The problem is like whats happened with several meat packing plants. After getting the safety concerns corrected-when the old contract came up they had to argue about something. Hence constant demands for a 4-7% yearly raise and no co-pays on insurance, etc.

In the upper midwest(Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota)many of those plants just shut down and went to friendlier, non union workforces. There is just no justification for $40 hour cutting up a pig.

Democrat=bought and paid for.

Wrap 'em up.

So sorrry kerrrry

UAW wrote:

Democrat=bought and paid for.

Wrap 'em up.

So sorrry kerrrry

I should be noted, in the interest of fairness, that Republicans are just as bought and paid for, albeit by mostly different interest groups. But we, as a country, reap what we sow: A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.

True but was the money they used extorted from their constituents and used without consent?

Patrick Russell wrote:

I should be noted, in the interest of fairness, that Republicans are just as bought and paid for, albeit by mostly different interest groups.

Well said Patrick.

It should also be noted that unions are DEMOCRATIC institutions. Under fascism and communism, belonging is almost impossible, and at least brings peril to personal safety. The Solidarity Union pretty much singlehandedly brought down the Polish commie system.

It's funny how CEO's can makes $50 million a year, often on the backs of the rank and file, which are making $20,000 per year. It's okay for CEOs to have a little dough, but if someone tries to form a union . . .

It should be noted that unions raise the wages of pretty much everyone, because our economic system is not in a vacuum. So if you're not in a union (and not upper management) but make a good wage, perhaps you owe a debt of gratitude to union members.

Yes, there is corruption in unions, and that troubles me deeply, just as there is fantastic corruption in the boardrooms by upper management. This system isn't perfect (but still better than all the others).

Now for the biggie: I live Michigan--a huge union state. When both Gore and Kerry came here in 2000 and 2004, the unions kowtowed to them hook, line, and sinker. The candidates didn't promise the unions SQUAT--and the unions fell in lockstep with them and threw all their support behind them. For what? This was a betrayal to the union membership (and I'm actually not in a union at this time).

Look at Clinton's behavior (and Carter's as well--the other democratic prez in the last few decades). They were essentially Republicans in their behavior. They were working for big business in essentially every decision (most notably NAFTA, which no Democrat should have ever been for). I still have trouble understanding Republican rage, when Clinton did many, many of the things a republican would have done. Republicans should have loved him--but that Democrat label brought forth so many knee jerk responses (that and Rush Limbaugh "telling people what to think").

The problem is the real liberals and progressives don't have a voice. There are two parties that do pretty much the same thing. Even Gore has millions in petro stock--despite his movie), so liberal, tree hugging, peace-mongering guys like me don't have prayer.

Famous liberal thinkers: Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein, MLK, Mohandas Ghandi, Albert Schweitzer, Mother Teresa--perhaps, given a little power, they could have made a difference.

speaking of the auto industry- give me an example at ford or gm where the execs got the $50million you claim. And the average uaw worker I am sure makes closer to $60k, more with benefits.

You democrats need to use the same argument regarding taxes. while the wealthy pay a higher percentage than the middle class, you make the argument that they get a greater percentage of the cuts, etc.

well the UAW as a whole cost the automakers far, far more than any executive pay, even if Bill Ford made $50million. That wouldnt even cover a weeks worth of pension obligation to the fat union cats and their retirees.

There is a reason Toyota and the imports are building plants in areas where unions are so unpopular they cant even get a vote- and why new ford and gm plants are going to mexico.

I'm no democrat. I am a progressive and/or liberal though. The democratic party sucks. What a bunch of weeeners (and Hilary Clinton is the poster child of all that is wrong and effed-up with that party--I'd become a republican if I could just make her shut up).

Bill Ford is worth more than $50 million. Do a google search, I'm sure it would not be that hard. Factory worker make a good living, but the benefits are quickly going bye-bye.

Plants move to Mexico so they don't have to pay taxes. That's what's really un-American here. It's one thing to talk about people (individuals) trying to pay less tax. Corporations, soulless institutions that they are, should pay their fair share. They should not get a vote in congress, and should not have a voice on the bench. When they do, that's called Fascism. Look it up.

Plus those factories in Mexico, where there's no union, make $1 a day or whatever it is.

My father-in-law was offered the presidency of a car company in Mexico (turned it down). It was worth over $1 million, plus he wudda got stock options. He was already a millionaire anyway so it didn't matter I guess. His salary, as upper management, was six figures. His bonuses were in the high six figures every year. Plus he got stock options, which is like having your cake and eating it too (nice if you can get it).

Yes, there are fat union cats (which are not the workers--the union cats are the corrupt union officials), just as there were selfish people in the civil rights movement and among our founding fathers for that matter. The fact remains that unions are a democratic institution, and if you hate unions, you essentially hate democracy, or favor democracy only when it favors you (which describes our current administration).

I support unions, but I, too, have a few problems with unions. Unions do protect the laziest workers, and that's something that should change.

However, whats wrong with having a nice retirement? What's wrong with being able to afford go send your kids to a good university? What's wrong with having the means to pay your bills? What's wrong with having some sort of system where there's basic fairness, instead of the current one of "I've got mine, now I'll make sure you can't get yours."

Most importantly, unions strengthen the middle class. A strong middle class is essential to a sound economy. Looking for a speck in the eye of the unions is useless when there's an entire plank in the eye of the ruling class.

Right now the Dems are trying to pass legislation making it easier for unions to push their way into private companies. Of course inorder to do this they are taking away rights of the individual workers at these companies. But the dems never really care about the worker only the union, most of which are corrupt.

Ron Paul. Not a Dem, however.

Ron Paul is a republican. Actually his belief system is more libertarian. He is a great man. I wish we had more like him.

kerrrry wrote:

I am very interested in some of the candidates, but who do you people think will stand up to the unions?

I know its not Edwards, but what about the others. The unions almost took down GM and Ford, along with the US Steel Industry, textile, and are running unchecked in the public sector. State govts. and local govts. keep talking of a need for more money, and a good chuck goes to the unionized employees.

Dont get me wrong, there are many useful purposes for a union, but so many sectors of our economy dont need one.

The unions have NEVER been weaker. This is a paper tiger if I have ever seen one.

Check out Kucinich, he is the only candidate that can be considered a true progressive. Maybe Obama but I don't think we know enough about him and worker's rights.

Anyone who gets vacation days and works a five day week owe the Unions their gratitude.

Anyone who complains that workers are overpaid, CEO to AVG. worker salary ratio is something like 400 to 1. 20 - 30 years ago that was more like 50-1.

The best anecdote about management abuse has to be when time-warner laid off 34 reporters because there was no money and the ceo got a bonus that would have more than paid the salaries of those employees.

kerrrry wrote:

I am very interested in some of the candidates, but who do you people think will stand up to the unions?

If you are a chick you should post this on the dumbest thing you ever heard a chick say thread.

Can you list some worker "rights" for me?

Mack5

your thoughts are not unreasonable. I agree that unions do protect the laziest of workers and that is my biggest problem with them. Collective bargaining is useful for insuring such benefits as health insurance, vacation time.

Corporations need the freedom to hire and fire who they want if they are to remain competitive. I worked for mcdonell douglas in Long beach 20 years ago and it was impossible to fire an incompetent worker. If they hired a guy to assemble an airplane and found out that he couldn't follow directions they would have to find him a job at the plant where he couldn't do any damage. I remember one guy in particular who was the laziest mf you ever saw. The company soon just had him driving a forklift around for what seemed like no purpose at all. His forklift was never loaded and all I recall him doing was driving around until he saw someone he knew and then stopping for a fifteen minute cigarette break

Stan Croft wrote:

Anyone who gets vacation days and works a five day week owe the Unions their gratitude.

No, they owe George Westinghouse their gratitude. He was the first industrialist to gaurantee to his workers a 5 day work week, paid vacations, and retirement packages. He was doing this before the formation of the AFL.