Omaha Forums

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:I'm comparing a pair of laws motivated by racial tension (please don't try to claim otherwise on either)

Spoken like someone who has not had their livelihood stolen by an illegal immigrant.

Spoken by somebody that thinks showing up on time and working a hand drill should support a middle class family of four.

Big E wrote:

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:I'm comparing a pair of laws motivated by racial tension (please don't try to claim otherwise on either)

Spoken like someone who has not had their livelihood stolen by an illegal immigrant.

Spoken by somebody that thinks showing up on time and working a hand drill should support a middle class family of four.

In the Union that job would feed a family of 12

S33 wrote:In the Union that job would feed a family of 12

Kind of my point.

We need a politics thread. I'd like to hear some opinions about our "Egypt moment", as morons protesting in Wisconsin all calling it. Should their collective bargaining rights be stripped?

To be fair, I'm not explicitly anti-union.  I think they are essential, particularly when it comes to workplace safety.  Unfortunately, they have become abusive with the leverage they have.

I look at them a little like monopolies.  There's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, but I can't think of a situation where that type of power wouldn't be used improperly, even if inadvertently.

S33 wrote:We need a politics thread. I'd like to hear some opinions about our "Egypt moment", as morons protesting in Wisconsin all calling it. Should their collective bargaining rights be stripped?

Not in the way Walker's doing it. If it's about the budget "crisis" (which he himself added to by handing out corporate kickbacks), then once the unions agreed to the monetary issues, he should have dropped the collective bargaining provision.

As is, he's shown his true colors - it's not about the budget, but about busting the unions. And he tried to do so in under a week with no deliberations whatsoever.

I'm not generally a pro-union guy, but Walker is acting like the biggest d***** in the universe on this one. I think he might even be able to beat out John Edward for that award (obscure reference? I hope not).

You're implying proposing to your child's mother right after your wife dies is bad form?

The people comparing Madison to Egypt are morons.

Big E wrote:You're implying proposing to your child's mother right after your wife dies is bad form?

John Edward, the idiot psychic who hosted "Crossing Over," not John Edwards, the politician.

Guess the reference was too obscure. South Park episode synopsis here

Jesus, this thing is the very definition of a train wreck. The engineers are long since dead. The chemicals have all soaked onto the ground. And nobody even called for the fire department. Somebody throw some dirt on this POS.

Screw you, Denver.  Have fun in the Pac 12 with the rest of the gays.

Big E wrote:

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:I'm comparing a pair of laws motivated by racial tension (please don't try to claim otherwise on either)

Spoken like someone who has not had their livelihood stolen by an illegal immigrant.

Spoken by somebody that thinks showing up on time and working a hand drill should support a middle class family of four.

Proved my point all over again.

Big E wrote:Screw you, Denver.  Have fun in the Pac 12 with the rest of the gays.

I realize you are being snarky for fun, but just in case you are even 5% serious.....

1. Colorado is in Boulder, not Denver.

2. Me living here has made me a fan of Colorado as much as 7 years in Omaha made me a fan of Nebraska. AKA 0.

3. Since Denver has all the pro sports plus world class skiing, hiking, etc, the only people here that give a |expletive| about college sports actually attended said college. Unlike some other state that shall remain worthless, ooops, anonymous.

the1wags wrote: 1. Colorado is in Boulder, not Denver.

Excuse me while I choke on my rubber pencil.

(I know what you meant)

the1wags wrote:

Big E wrote:Screw you, Denver.  Have fun in the Pac 12 with the rest of the gays.

I realize you are being snarky for fun, but just in case you are even 5% serious.....

When have you ever known me to be even 5% serious?  :D

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:I'm comparing a pair of laws motivated by racial tension (please don't try to claim otherwise on either)

Spoken like someone who has not had their livelihood stolen by an illegal immigrant.

Spoken by somebody that thinks showing up on time and working a hand drill should support a middle class family of four.

Proved my point all over again.

You're right.  I've never had a job stolen by an illegal immigrant.  Point proven.

I've also never chosen a livelihood whose wages were artificially inflated by unions, nor learned a skill that could be replaced by illiterate day laborers.

Let's call it a wash.

Big E wrote:To be fair, I'm not explicitly anti-union.  I think they are essential, particularly when it comes to workplace safety.  Unfortunately, they have become abusive with the leverage they have.

I look at them a little like monopolies.  There's nothing inherently wrong with a monopoly, but I can't think of a situation where that type of power wouldn't be used improperly, even if inadvertently.

As a dear friend of yours, I think if you ever had to work for some of the companies that people "like" you own, you would change your views on unions. As it is now many corporations have pretty much come as close to slave labor for American workers as you can get. Any system is going to have room for abuse. I think it's fair for the workers to "abuse" those in power back. Sometimes it's the only way to get things done.

Public unions don't "get those in power back," they get the taxpayers, unfortunately. (see Wisconsin recent events)

S33 wrote:Public unions don't "get those in power back," they get the taxpayers, unfortunately. (see Wisconsin recent events)

I was specifically speaking about private unions. In essence I don't see what's wrong with having public unions either. Yes, taxpayers fund it, but it doesn't mean it's always a rape of the taxpayers. But for any municipality to function it needs a workforce and that workforce deserves to be treated fairly even when their employers are we the people.

DTO Luv wrote:

S33 wrote:Public unions don't "get those in power back," they get the taxpayers, unfortunately. (see Wisconsin recent events)

I was specifically speaking about private unions. In essence I don't see what's wrong with having public unions either. Yes, taxpayers fund it, but it doesn't mean it's always a rape of the taxpayers. But for any municipality to function it needs a workforce and that workforce deserves to be treated fairly even when their employers are we the people.

Agreed. My main problem with public unions, are their benefits and pensions. So many unrepresented private sector workers work their entire lives for shitty pay, lousy or no benefits, and no retirement plan to speak of. Yet, for every little paycheck their slave labor earns, a large chunk is taken out to fund the Public Union workers and their sweet negotiated deals they brokered with politicians in exchange for something else likely taxpayer funded.

Sorry, but I understand why unions can be beneficial, but they have too much power and, like Big E said, that is almost always taken advantage of.

You may not ever hear me say this again, but a good dose of socialism should put them in check. Do away with the unions, and have some government mandated industry standards for worker's pay.

Screen captured just in case.

I feel dirty for saying that.

Big E wrote:

the1wags wrote:

Big E wrote:Screw you, Denver.  Have fun in the Pac 12 with the rest of the gays.

I realize you are being snarky for fun, but just in case you are even 5% serious.....

When have you ever known me to be even 5% serious?  :D

Does when browsing a wine list count?

S33 wrote:Agreed. My main problem with public unions, are their benefits and pensions. So many unrepresented private sector workers work their entire lives for |expletive| pay, lousy or no benefits, and no retirement plan to speak of. Yet, for every little paycheck their slave labor earns, a large chunk is taken out to fund the Public Union workers and their sweet negotiated deals they brokered with politicians in exchange for something else likely taxpayer funded.

I know it sounds harsh, but my response to that has always been "too bad". It wasn't the public sector that decided to by and large abandon their unions and directly lower their standard of living. The private sector is the one that did that, and they can live with the consequences.

Besides, instead of fighting tooth and nail to bring everyone else down to their level, they should join forces with the public sector, start forming their own unions again and fight to get back the share of the pie they've lost over the last several decades.  

You may not ever hear me say this again, but a good dose of socialism should put them in check. Do away with the unions, and have some government mandated industry standards for worker's pay.

Well I guess that's one way to do it lol.

Big E wrote:

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:

joeglow wrote:

Big E wrote:I'm comparing a pair of laws motivated by racial tension (please don't try to claim otherwise on either)

Spoken like someone who has not had their livelihood stolen by an illegal immigrant.

Spoken by somebody that thinks showing up on time and working a hand drill should support a middle class family of four.

Proved my point all over again.

You're right.  I've never had a job stolen by an illegal immigrant.  Point proven.

I've also never chosen a livelihood whose wages were artificially inflated by unions, nor learned a skill that could be replaced by illiterate day laborers.

Let's call it a wash.

Nebraska is a right to work state.  What I am talking about is elementary economics and basic supply and demand.  Two things you clearly do not understand.

Bosco55David wrote:I know it sounds harsh, but my response to that has always been "too bad". It wasn't the public sector that decided to by and large abandon their unions and directly lower their standard of living. The private sector is the one that did that, and they can live with the consequences.

You still miss the problem.  If a union gets greedy and the company lets it go, the company goes under, taking the union with it.  The government will never go away, to there is no limit to what unions can demand.  The problem is that unions ALWAYS want more.  Wisconsin is proof that the taxpaying public is tired of the bullsh*t and will doing everything they can to just get rid of unions.  They have outlived their usefulness anyway.

Wisconsin is proof that the taxpaying public is tired of the bullsh*t and will doing everything they can to just get rid of unions.  They have outlived their usefulness anyway.

From what I have been reading -- it has mostly been the governor and the Republican side of the legislature. In one survey of Wisconsin residents -- they were not on the governor's side in this issue.

Uffda wrote:

Wisconsin is proof that the taxpaying public is tired of the bullsh*t and will doing everything they can to just get rid of unions.  They have outlived their usefulness anyway.

From what I have been reading -- it has mostly been the governor and the Republican side of the legislature. In one survey of Wisconsin residents -- they were not on the governor's side in this issue.

From what I have been reading, he is doing exactly what he campaigned on.

Uffda wrote:From what I have been reading -- it has mostly been the governor and the Republican side of the legislature. In one survey of Wisconsin residents -- they were not on the governor's side in this issue.

Exactly. It's also pretty telling that this issue is still going on long after the union agreed to all the monetary concessions.

Bosco55David wrote:

Uffda wrote:From what I have been reading -- it has mostly been the governor and the Republican side of the legislature. In one survey of Wisconsin residents -- they were not on the governor's side in this issue.

Exactly. It's also pretty telling that this issue is still going on long after the union agreed to all the monetary concessions.

I know it sounds harsh, but my response to that has always been "too bad". It wasn't the taxpayer that decided to by and large abandon fiscal responsibility.   The unions are the ones that did that, and they can live with the backlash.

DTO Luv wrote:As a dear friend of yours, I think if you ever had to work for some of the companies that people "like" you own, you would change your views on unions. As it is now many corporations have pretty much come as close to slave labor for American workers as you can get. Any system is going to have room for abuse. I think it's fair for the workers to "abuse" those in power back. Sometimes it's the only way to get things done.

For the most part, I agree with you (except for the abuse back part).  I think I've been clearly in support of basic right to organize and bargain collectively.  I also happen to agree with joeglow that all too often they abuse their position:

joeglow wrote:I know it sounds harsh, but my response to that has always been "too bad". It wasn't the taxpayer that decided to by and large abandon fiscal responsibility.   The unions are the ones that did that, and they can live with the backlash.

I'm a little confused how one can say unions should live with the backlash and then tell me I don't understand supply and demand.  If you're saying illegal labor unfairly influences the supply side of labor, I don't necessarily disagree with you.  But I will point out that it is no more unfair than than the influence unions have on the demand side by artificially inflating wages beyond what a free market would justify.

Beyond that, you lost me.

Big E wrote:I'm a little confused how one can say unions should live with the backlash and then tell me I don't understand supply and demand.  If you're saying illegal labor unfairly influences the supply side of labor, I don't necessarily disagree with you.  But I will point out that it is no more unfair than than the influence unions have on the demand side by artificially inflating wages beyond what a free market would justify.

Beyond that, you lost me.

He lost me too, but in his defense I'm pretty sure he was trying to be cute rather than make an actual point.

Big E wrote:I'm a little confused how one can say unions should live with the backlash and then tell me I don't understand supply and demand.  If you're saying illegal labor unfairly influences the supply side of labor, I don't necessarily disagree with you.  But I will point out that it is no more unfair than than the influence unions have on the demand side by artificially inflating wages beyond what a free market would justify.

Beyond that, you lost me.

You seem to be confusing 2 discussions going on.  In one, you claim that flooding a labor market with illegal immigrants is somehow the fault of the people working the jobs that had their wages cut in half.  This has nothing to do with unions.  It is basic supply and demand.

For the same reason, I oppose unions, as they have long outlived their usefulness.

When I was in public accounting, I audited an insurance company in Madison.  Their accountants were unionized and were the laziest people I have EVER seen in my profession.  God forbid you had a question at 5:01, as the place was a ghost town.

Speaking of public unions, I didn't see this coming...

Union bill whizzing through Ohio Legislature
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_ ... nion_fight

COLUMBUS, Ohio – While much of the nation's attention remains focused on a stalled proposal in Wisconsin to restrict collective bargaining rights for public workers, an Ohio measure that in some ways is tougher and broader is speeding toward reality.

A Senate panel and then the full chamber approved the Ohio measure Wednesday amid jeers from onlookers. The bill would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees, while Wisconsin's would affect about 175,000 workers and exempt police and firefighters.

S33 wrote:Speaking of public unions, I didn't see this coming...

Union bill whizzing through Ohio Legislature
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110303/ap_ ... nion_fight

COLUMBUS, Ohio – While much of the nation's attention remains focused on a stalled proposal in Wisconsin to restrict collective bargaining rights for public workers, an Ohio measure that in some ways is tougher and broader is speeding toward reality.

A Senate panel and then the full chamber approved the Ohio measure Wednesday amid jeers from onlookers. The bill would restrict the collective bargaining rights of roughly 350,000 teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public employees, while Wisconsin's would affect about 175,000 workers and exempt police and firefighters.

In a way this isn't surprising. For awhile anyway, all eyes are on Wisconsin.  The media is obsessed with it too.  Meanwhile, everywhere else in the nation, far broader legislation is enacted while nobody pays attention.


It's no surprise that Public Employee Unions have become the object of scorn for most rank & file taxpayers, and for good reason.  What's unfortunate is that the pendulum will probably swing too far back the other way.  We have trouble finding balance.