republicans Continue Their Assaults Against Schools

I've read far too many stories lately regarding republican assaults against unions, teachers in particular. Below are a few quotes from recent stories:

Detroit's EM is considering selling the art from a public museum.

This is typical of what republican governments do: Break-up the unions, reduce or eliminate spending for the those in need of assistance, lower taxes and give even more money to rich people and businesses.

Sources:

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/17/hunger-strike-against-school-closures-begins-in-philadelphia/

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/06/13/state-cuts-to-education-spur-philadelphia-school-budget-crisis/

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/08/michigan-town-shuts-schools-lays-off-all-teachers-over-budget-crisis/

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/05/27/dia-m27.html

I added the last link specifically for the anti-Socialists here to stammer and froth at the mouth at.

 

Want to buy an island? Detroit's Belle Isle Park may soon be on the market, as it too is being considered.

Info about the island park:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Isle_Park

 

Maybe some of you didn't believe my warning about this happening when I mentioned it a while back. Well, it's happened. School unions are being busted, teachers are being fired, municipal parks and other assets are being targeted and sold:

I wonder how much Belle Isle Park will fetch, or Pieter Brughel's "The Wedding Dance" (great wedding gift!), or Vincent Van Gogh's "Self portrait".

Source: http://www.michiganradio.org/post/benton-harbor-emergency-manager-sells-parkland-he-shouldn-t-have

 

Public schools, women, gays, minorities, unions, workers, immigrants.... The only thing they seem to be for is intangibles like freedom, liberty, and God. What does that mean? It means that they never have to be "for" anything as long as they say that they are "for" non-specific ideals. When it comes to actual people, well it is best if they stay vague.

 

Well, Romney won 47% of the vote, so it's safe to say that 47% of voters agree with decreasing jobs, refusing assistance for the less fortunate, and selling public assets to private individuals.

In other words, there are a lot of greedy people in this country. 47% of them would sell their kids if they had any Viagra and blind deaf dumb women around that could handle the touch and stench of a republican for a few seconds.

 

I think most of them aren't as evil as all that...They are pretty much ignorant sluts.

 

Whats funny is how many conservatives who bash unions think what unions have fought and won for them is their god given right. Things like weekends, paid vacations, child labor laws, minimum wage, overtime, a 40 hour full-time standard work week, benefits like medical and retirement. ALL won by unions...none of them things employers give out of the kindness of their hearts. If any conservative benefits from any of these (as they all do) they're morons to oppose unions.

 

No argument from me on that.

I think it's about not having enough sense to balance conservatism with liberalism. People tend to prefer one or the other, but going too far to either side isn't healthy, not for them and not for the country.

People tend to become extremists over one issue, like the Second Amendment or religion or civil rights, and lose focus on a healthy balance between what they believe and others believe, which eventually becomes simple ignorance.

I do my best to remember that my point of view isn't the only one, but when I see republicans ignoring other people's rights while spouting off extremist's points of views I can't help but lean a bit further away from the center.

At least I'm aware of it, and admit it, and do my best to get back to the center (for fear of being an extremist)...unlike republicans who appear to be quite happy being extremists.

They gotta go lol

 

Been sayin' this for years in this forum and they can't quite bring themselves to acknowledge this fact. They just can't admit to themselves that unions and union workers fought for these rights they take for granted. Clearly, as the war on unions takes its toll, wages flatten and benefit decline but the company boys don't see the connection. Idiots to the bitter end they are.

 

You've only "been sayin' this for years" because you're a fool.

WHY UNIONS ARE BAD FOR WORKERS​

John Stossel: They 'protect' Americans all the way to the unemployment line​

It seems intuitive that a free market would lead to a “race to the bottom.” In a global marketplace, profit-chasing employers will cut costs by paying workers less and less, and shipping jobs to China.​

​

It’s a reason that progressives say government must step in.​

​

So America now has thousands of rules that outlaw wages below $7.25 an hour, restrict unpaid internships and compel people to pay union dues. These rules appear to help workers. But they don’t.​

​

“Collective bargaining” sounds good. Collective bargaining “rights” even better. Employers are more sophisticated about job negotiations than individual employees, so why shouldn’t workers be able to join together to bargain?​

They should be. But in 27 states, labor laws force workers to join unions. When CBS offered me a job, I had to join AFTRA, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. I didn’t want to. I don’t consider myself an artist. I didn’t want to pay dues to a union that didn’t appear to do much. But I had no choice.​

​

Laws that force workers to join unions treat millions of diverse people, most of whom want very different things, as undifferentiated collectives. That means that good workers get punished.​

​

When I was at ABC and CBS, union culture slowed us down. Sometimes a camera crew took five minutes just to get out of the car.​

​

But without a minimum wage or union protection, wouldn’t employers abuse workers? In a real free market, no, they can’t. Because workers have choices. Employers have an incentive to maintain a good relationship with employees – one that keeps them reasonably loyal – because workers can quit and go work for a rival.​

​

If globalism leads to a “race to the bottom,” why do 95 percent of American workers make more than minimum wage? It’s not because companies are generous, but because competition forces them to offer higher wages to attract good workers. Companies may move jobs overseas to escape high U.S. wages (or U.S. taxes and regulations), but they clearly prefer to keep jobs here, close to their headquarters, suppliers and customers.​

Unions once helped advance working conditions, but now union rules hurt workers because they stifle growth by making companies less flexible. When I arrived at CBS, I was stunned to discover that I couldn’t even watch a video in a tape player without risking a grievance being filed by a union editor, saying I’d encroached on his job. Work ground to a halt while we waited for a union specialist to press the “on” button. ABC and CBS, being private businesses that had to compete, eventually got rid of those rules. But it took years.​

​

Unions eventually hurt union workers because unionized companies atrophy. Non-union Toyota grew, while GM shrank. JetBlue Airlines blossomed, while unionized TWA and Pan Am went out of business. Unions “protect” workers all the way to the unemployment line.​

​

When I criticize compulsory unions and regulations, it’s not because I want rich employers to get fat off the labor of workers. It’s because I’ve learned that markets are fluid – and the best way for more workers to find good jobs is to leave everyone free to make any contract they wish.​

​

Outlawing the low-wage job that taught a teenager skills or the internship that gave a kid a foot in the door doesn’t insulate people from hardships of the market. It insulates them from knowledge about how to function in an ever-changing economy.​

​

That’s not compassion. That’s a denial of reality.​

​

Advocates of “kind” central planning overlook the gradual, piecemeal improvement that markets make. Focused on government’s promise of once-and-for-all solutions (promises that rarely lead to actual solutions), people miss how free markets gradually help humanity solve problems.​

​

Economic historian Robert Higgs joked that it will always be easier to rally politically inclined people behind unrealistic, revolutionary causes than to rally them around subtle economic progress, because no crowd marches behind a banner proclaiming, “Toward a Marginally Improved Society!”​

​

The best way to help workers is to get the government to butt out and let competitive markets work.​

​

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/why-unions-are-bad-for-workers/#C23wC0oWm1FXjeRf.99 ​

 

Those are the sorriest excuses against unions I believe I've ever heard. Unionized companies aren't flexible and dynamic? Really? I can list a million reasons this isn't true. Unions aren't against the employer like demonizers make them out to be. They work with the employer towards everyone's advantage. It doesn't do my union members any good to cripple the company and restrict business, as we're there to work and make money. The more we allow the company to thrive, the more we make, so we make concessions without compromising safety or pay. TWA and PanAm went bankrupt because of issues stemming from an old fleet that they greedily never updated until the cost to do so was more than their asset worth, not because of unions (which is the same union as all other airline workers, as well as rail transportation such as myself).

The simple fact is unions have done far more for the worker than non-unionized workers. Like I mentioned earlier, if you want to work for 50 cents an hour without days off and benefits, by all means, destroy unions. But, when you're reduced to cobbling shoes out of a refrigerator box on the corner, know you wanted this and fought for this.

 

Ask Wonder bread how the unions worked with them. Or GM. Or Chrysler. Or US Steel. Look at what happened to the RR's until Seaboard broke the union. I firmly believe that some do - just as firmly as I believe that a lot do not to the point where the company fails

 

Fortunately, your beliefs are in no way associated with the word fact.

 

The railroads are 100% unionized...another fact you misrepresented. Companies like to blame unions for their own shortcomings. Unions aren't there to destroy the jobs of their members.

 

And just how many cabooses have you seen lately? You can thank Seaboard for that. And how many loaves of wonder bread are on your store shelves? Can you find an American made hand tool? All I can find are made in China (save for one). One of the more cooperative unions I have ever heard of used to work with Xerox. How many Xerox copiers have you seen lately? I will give you 3 guess why - and the first 2 don't count. I wonder why Lois Lerner is still getting paid. Ever hear of NYC's rubber rooms? Need any more examples? And those are just off the cuff.

 

Cabooses went away because the railroads advanced their technologies to the point where they didn't need five people per train, not because the unions voted them out. The unions fought hard to stop the elimination of three people per train...and lost. Over 100,000 people lost their jobs over that. I wouldn't consider over half a million union members just in my craft in this country as being busted. I've also been a union officer and have never heard of Seaboard. It must have been something effected shortline rail and not class 1 rail.

 

Unions once served a purpose (a long, long time ago) but now they serve simply as a fundraising arm for liberal politics.

 

Idiots blame unions when it is bad management that fails most companies.

 

Why do you hate workers?

 

You've mentioned you were a business owner but have refused to answer the very simple question of whether your employees are unionized or not.