Magox Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Perhaps...but the way the money is earned is no more ethical, in many cases, than what most of you here(don't know if you are a tea party guy Magox, you seem too smart)suggest all unions of being guilty of. I do not like to view things from a black or white perspective, because I think that is largely a flawed way to look at things. Sort of like when I hear Ben Bernanke ferociously defend his monetary policy as not being the reason for rising commodity prices and then you get the fiscal hawks who say that it IS because of his monetary policy of these elevated prices, where in reality, which no one seems to ever mention it is a combination of the two. Honestly I believe that unions do have a place in all societies, but the nature of a Union boss is to always ask for more, so whenever the tide is rising high, so does the pay and benefits but when things get slow, in most cases (other than this past historic downturn) pay doesnt match the downturn. I look to Ford 2006 2007, here's a company that had record sales and still was in the red by over a billion dollars annually, and when you look into the average line workers pay, with benefits it reached $90 an hour. I'm not going to entirely blame union bosses forour manufacturing down turn, because it's obvious cheap labor was the largest factor, but when you combine the ridiculous benefits and pay, its just logical that companies will look to move shop overseas. MInd you this is a private union matter that I'm talking about, the public unions in many cases are much worse. I mean the protection that is offered to workers is absurd, you basically could be in the bottom 20% of quality workers in your field and you would be afforded the protection of the Unions. Not ony that, union bosses have been in bed with politicians (so have CEO's of certain sectors) that they have struck deals that we the taxpayers are having to pay .. look at all the unfunded liabilities through benefits that many states have to deal with that will never be compensated, only through tough budget cuts, reduced pay, workers layofffs and higher taxes will those obligations be met. And whats ironically funny is that the same people who supported these absurd payouts look to blame the other political party for not continuing these unsustainable promises that are bankrupting states . Dont they see, that A large reason why state and local governments are laying off lots of workers is simply because of the deals that were struck between public unions and the politicians that they bought off. I'm not exclusivly blaming unions and politicians for this outcome, no doubt that the downturn created a loss in revnues, but in many of these cases they would of never have been able to meet these obligations even if things continued to move upward. Not just that, but as I mentioned earlier, when things were rolling with the housing market blistering higher the promises got bigger, and when the bubble bursted, these state and local governments were screwed. So whats the solution? Have the taxpayer bailout these ridiculous promises ? No, its obvious to me that they need to restructure themselves back to a more sustainable path. It's human nature to expect a whiplash reaction towards the unions much like what we are seeing in Wisconsin and Ohio. At the end of the day, the pendulum will swing again, and hopefully we'll find a solid middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 If you don't, you'll never hear the end of it. Yeah, I know...like a spoiled little kid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 No...if you are so concerned with me answering Post #102 of this thread, read Post #117 of this thread, and you should be able to figure out my answer to your question! I guess if I'm reading you right you're saying that the way money is earned is important in ethical sense. I would agree with you. I also don't think all unions are bad. I do think that the union in question purposely gave bad advice to its members in order to line its pockets. You danced around the issue while I came out and called it like it is. That's a real sign of a spoiled kid alright, but the spoiled kid is the one being obtuse, and that is you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 (edited) I guess if I'm reading you right you're saying that the way money is earned is important in ethical sense. I would agree with you. I also don't think all unions are bad. I do think that the union in question purposely gave bad advice to its members in order to line its pockets. You danced around the issue while I came out and called it like it is. That's a real sign of a spoiled kid alright, but the spoiled kid is the one being obtuse, and that is you. Sorry, wasn't trying to be obtuse! You just have a pattern of "answer my question, answer my question" type of posts...if you just read all the posts, you would likely get your answer. I didn't "dance around" your question, I just didn't answer it, because I didn't see the need to...you are asking about one specific instance, and obviously it is wrong. But that doesn't mean anything in the bigger picture. I give you credit (and I am being very sincere) for addressing the issue of ethics. It is something that seems to be a one-sided issue for all the "union busters" out there. I would guess that there are a fair number of us here, who grew up in homes where one, if not both, of our parents were members of a union, and likely glad for it. Unions came into existence as a result of unethical business practices...it would be naive to think that unions aren't above being corrupted, but equalluy naive to believe that management/ownership (whatever you want to call it)isn't corrupt as well. This whole notion that "they provided the donuts, so they can take them back whenever they want" shows how simplistic the outlook has become from one side of this issue. Edited April 12, 2011 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Yes, he provided the facilites, and the materials, which he purchased with all the corporate welfare and tax breaks he recieved. So in your tiny ming the only way someone could become a billionaire is through corporate welfare adn tax breaks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted April 12, 2011 Author Share Posted April 12, 2011 Sorry, wasn't trying to be obtuse! You just have a pattern of "answer my question, answer my question" type of posts...if you just read all the posts, you would likely get your answer. I didn't "dance around" your question, I just didn't answer it, because I didn't see the need to...you are asking about one specific instance, and obviously it is wrong. But that doesn't mean anything in the bigger picture. I give you credit (and I am being very sincere) for addressing the issue of ethics. It is something that seems to be a one-sided issue for all the "union busters" out there. I would guess that there are a fair number of us here, who grew up in homes where one, if not both, of our parents were members of a union, and likely glad for it. Unions came into existence as a result of unethical business practices...it would be naive to think that unions aren't above being corrupted, but equalluy naive to believe that management/ownership (whatever you want to call it)isn't corrupt as well. This whole notion that "they provided the donuts, so they can take them back whenever they want" shows how simplistic the outlook has become from one side of this issue. I have a pattern of asking lyrbob to answer one specific question because he refuses and has run away along with lying about things. I will ask other people to answer a question if I think they are running away too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 So in your tiny ming the only way someone could become a billionaire is through corporate welfare adn tax breaks? Chef, I was using the same broad generalazations that others (not necessarily you) were using in trying to pick apart a joke! My ming is dynastic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Yes, he provided the facilites, and the materials, which he purchased with all the corporate welfare and tax breaks he recieved. Totally agree. It would be MUCH better if the government increased corporate taxes, took more money from people who have it just because, y'know, they have it, and then used that money to provide the donuts. Then everyone would get one. It would be fair. It would be equal. Regardless of individual effort. Unless you were in charge of the unions, in which case you'd be given extra donuts that you could sell for cash that you would then invest in political campaigns to ensure justice continues to be served for all. Awesome plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Chef, I was using the same broad generalazations that others (not necessarily you) were using in trying to pick apart a joke! My ming is dynastic! Your joke was a broad generalization. I'll give you credit for humor, but youit was also an attempt to make a broader political statement, and that statement was flawed. I will try to avoid generalazations in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Your joke was a broad generalization. I'll give you credit for humor, but youit was also an attempt to make a broader political statement, and that statement was flawed. I will try to avoid generalazations in the future. Yeah, Rob's House, I get it, you get it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts