unions now biggest spender of 2010 elections

#51
#51
Ed12111 said:
I'm confused you're honestly arguing that the union is not going to act in the best interests of its' members. That is ridiculous. As for this "Finally, Wal-mart isn't spending money it took directly from employees to support some political cause." of course it is. Where do you think Wal-Mart's money comes from? They're using their employees, stockholders, and customers money.
Click to expand...

You don't work in the real world do you?

The union is going to act in the best interest of the union. If that coincides with the best interest of it's members that is only coincidental.

The only possibly correct statement about Wal-Mart's money is that it could have gone to stockholders if not donated for political purposes.
 
#52
#52
KentheOrange said:
You don't work in the real world do you?

The union is going to act in the best interest of the union. If that coincides with the best interest of it's members that is only coincidental.

The only possibly correct statement about Wal-Mart's money is that it could have gone to stockholders if not donated for political purposes.
Click to expand...

You're the one who seemingly lives in an alternate universe. Unions can't possibly work in the interests of their members. Similarly, do you think Wal-Mart can't possibly work in their(the people who run it) best interest. I think unions and corporations are both perfectly capable of knowing what's best for them. Actually, what are these grand machinations unions do that don't benefit their members. Finally, many of you claim unions are so powerful, and yet claim they're horribly inept. How does that work?
 
#53
#53
Gotta love unionists. They can't see both sides of the coin, that they need the business they work for to be strong in order for them to continue to get paid. They've pushed and pushed and pushed until they run the auto industry into the ground, and have certainly contributed to the failures of many other businesses around the country. Hell, if the government were not propping them up, where would they be?
 
#54
#54
Ed12111 said:
Shocking. Only when people representing unions are well paid do you get all huffy. Do you ever take a step back, and realize how logically inconsistent you are?
Click to expand...

you can't seriously be arguing that a ceo who actually produces revenue and jobs is even remotely comparable to a public employee.
 
#55
#55
Ed12111 said:
You're the one who seemingly lives in an alternate universe. Unions can't possibly work in the interests of their members. Similarly, do you think Wal-Mart can't possibly work in their(the people who run it) best interest. I think unions and corporations are both perfectly capable of knowing what's best for them. Actually, what are these grand machinations unions do that don't benefit their members. Finally, many of you claim unions are so powerful, and yet claim they're horribly inept. How does that work?
Click to expand...

Here are a few ways that unions can be harmful to their members:

1) valuing seniority over merit punishes initiative and creates a culture of "keeping" a job rather than "doing" a job.

2) opposing cross-training and demanding ultra division of labor deprives members of skill/knowledge development that could help them succeed outside the union or at least help them find a new job if necessary.

3) demand for benefits beyond the reality of the market place (see UAW) ultimately puts company at competitive disadvantage and threatens future of employee benefits and future employee growth.

4) protecting the jobs of non-performers impacts organizational performance and breeds resentment among productive members - particularly when pay is linked to seniority or across-the-board raises rather than merit (see public school system).

Ken had it right - unions serve the interests of union preservation. Often times that benefits members, often times it does not. Likewise, companies serve the interests of companies. Often times that benefits employees, other times it does not.
 
#56
#56
nah these unions aren't a problem at all:

Michael Moritz: San Francisco's Public Pension Revolt - WSJ.com

A few times a week, the vessels putter about to provide a visiting cruise ship with a watery salute. For this, all of the vessels' captains and engineers are paid $172,253 a year in salary and benefits and are eligible for a city-paid pension after 20 years. Regardless of whether they take a new job, the pension entitles them to 90% of their annual income, plus annual cost of living adjustments, for the rest of their lives.
 
Last edited:
#57
#57
droski said:
nah these unions aren't problem at all:

Michael Moritz: San Francisco's Public Pension Revolt - WSJ.com

A few times a week, the vessels putter about to provide a visiting cruise ship with a watery salute. For this, all of the vessels' captains and engineers are paid $172,253 a year in salary and benefits and are eligible for a city-paid pension after 20 years. Regardless of whether they take a new job, the pension entitles them to 90% of their annual income, plus annual cost of living adjustments, for the rest of their lives.
Click to expand...

Looks like riots are coming soon to SF.
 
#59
#59
volinbham said:
Oh yes - no proof is required. Accusations will suffice.
Click to expand...


I laughed when I first heard this argument about a week ago.

The Chamber (and others) refuse to disclose the identities of who is contributing to the fund used to bankroll Republicans.

Democrats complain that this could be anything, from large corporations to foreign interests.

The Chamber and the GOP retort that the Dems have no proof.

I just find that hilarious.
 
#61
#61
lawgator1 said:
I laughed when I first heard this argument about a week ago.

The Chamber (and others) refuse to disclose the identities of who is contributing to the fund used to bankroll Republicans.

Democrats complain that this could be anything, from large corporations to foreign interests.

The Chamber and the GOP retort that the Dems have no proof.

I just find that hilarious.
Click to expand...

What about the left leaning 501c4s?

You buy Axlerod's standard of proof? "Where's the proof they aren't?" Is this how the standard of proof works - I would think as a lawyer you'd laugh at Axelrod's argument.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top