That's because 'legitimate answer' is subjective. People can choose where they want to work. If a person doesn't want to be a part of a union then they obviously don't want that job. Here at Corning you can apply for company or union jobs. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. You make the choice when you apply.

 

 

But if being in a union is so great them wouldn't a person want to be in the union and not have to be coerced into joining?

 

You know my stance that I overall believe that unions are corrupt organizations that exist more now to enrich those at the top rather then the worker, in fact I would consider them as greedy and top heavy as the "evil" corporations that they love to vilify.

I was grooving on the list till I saw repealing Obamacare. That is an automatic deal breaker for me, just as strong as how Right to Life feels about abortion. I am all for making changes to Obamacare but I am adamantly opposed to repealing it.

I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions with regard to making changes to Obamacare.

Why is there such a desire to rid America of unions/working class people? Are the unions getting too close to opposing politicians? The general premise of unions is to keep workers safe at work and to earn a fair wage for their work. Why is that so bad? I just don't get it.

 

So unions and working class people are synonymous? If they are so good, why do they put tens of millions of dollars into Dem's political coffers to support their cause? Why do they need protection? The federal government wage and hour laws, OSHA, NLRB and EEO do far more than any union to protect workers, and we already pay taxes for those. So why does an average worker need to be forced to pay union dues? It sounds like a protection racket. Toyota is the highest paying large employer in Central Kentucky. What union represents their employees?

What union represents their employees?

 

Informally... the UAW. Do their workers get paid anywhere NEAR what they do if Ford, GM, and whoever else aren't paying high union wages elsewhere? I doubt it.

 

American industrial superiority was built on the back of big finance and brilliant men with big ideas.

 

The American middle class was built by high post-war wages, at least in part from union-driven wages that became available to people without the necessary education or connections to otherwise earn that kind of wage.

 

Globalization and advances in technology have held wages flat for a generation. Are unions a part of that? Sure. But what I've seen gives me a lot of pause to the "conspiracy" theory espoused by a lot of union folks I know: make the big push to get rid of campaign finance laws by touting the fact that labor unions can use the freedom to spend just like corporations... then... get rid of the unions.

 

To be sure, unions need massive reform. The number of teamsters I know that are absolutely furious about how Hoffa handled the last contract here in Louisville and the way he went about it would be enough to give me pause on its own. But in the end, I've never been convinced by the right-to-work notion that somehow busting the unions is going to make America stronger or make people's lives better.

Pure coincidence. Union or non-union doesn't dictate job growth.

 

Agreed. The states where job growth has been heavy I would argue has to do with two things specifically: 1) a reasonable tax code and rates for firms of all sizes and 2) a friendly regulatory scheme. To be certain, those two things are indicative of voters putting in the types of legislators that tend to also favor right-to-work, but I believe No. 2 to be the most important thing affecting American business.

I'd be interested in hearing your suggestions with regard to making changes to Obamacare.

 

I am not close enough to the daily workings of it to make specific suggestions. Areas that I have some knowledge of and where mistakes were made IMO are in the coverage requirements in the plans. They were much too rigid. It allowed no room for less expensive and less expansive plans. My main concern is I want universal coverage where no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. I also believe if Obamacare is repealed, there will be no suitable replacement implemented and it will be back to the old days, which I believe everyone agrees was not working. As flawed as Obamacare may be, it is better than what we had before Obamacare.

One thing being overlooked in this discussion is that the platform is providing a basis for debate. By placing this platform out there for everyone to look over, it allows the voter a chance to see where one stands on the issues, not using some slogan like "hope and change". By putting the issues out there to be discussed, there is a basis for both sides to talk over the issues and possibly find common ground, have some give and take and even compromise. Better than what either party is doing on the national level.

I am not close enough to the daily workings of it to make specific suggestions. Areas that I have some knowledge of and where mistakes were made IMO are in the coverage requirements in the plans. They were much too rigid. It allowed no room for less expensive and less expansive plans. My main concern is I want universal coverage where no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. I also believe if Obamacare is repealed, there will be no suitable replacement implemented and it will be back to the old days, which I believe everyone agrees was not working. As flawed as Obamacare may be, it is better than what we had before Obamacare.

 

Why would you accept a flawed program? Would you buy a flawed house when a better house is available? You want no pre-existing conditions, just pass a law saying so. We did not need thousand's of pages of regulations just to get that point. And as far as the old days not working, I knew no one that was not getting care.

 

I believe Congress can come up with a replacement, if Reid would allow some debate on the issue.

One thing being overlooked in this discussion is that the platform is providing a basis for debate. By placing this platform out there for everyone to look over, it allows the voter a chance to see where one stands on the issues, not using some slogan like "hope and change". By putting the issues out there to be discussed, there is a basis for both sides to talk over the issues and possibly find common ground, have some give and take and even compromise. Better than what either party is doing on the national level.

 

I definitely agree with you on that front. And a big congratulations is to be made to the Kentucky GOP for making that happen. The Kentucky Democratic Party is currently too busy trying to figure out how to best embarrass itself and the Commonwealth by being a complete mess right now to do much of anything similar.

I definitely agree with you on that front. And a big congratulations is to be made to the Kentucky GOP for making that happen. The Kentucky Democratic Party is currently too busy trying to figure out how to best embarrass itself and the Commonwealth by being a complete mess right now to do much of anything similar.

 

Both parties could do that on a national level. The GOP was blasted for its 'Contract of America', but it worked and I believe all 10 points were implemented.

 

It got a large number of Republicans elected and Congress and Clinton worked to get some legislation passed.

If they are so good, why do they put tens of millions of dollars into Dem's political coffers to support their cause?

Because big business supports Republicans, and Republicans support big business. Corporate America outspends unions roughly 9-1 in national elections. Probably more than that now thanks to recent Supreme Court decisions. Where unions really make a difference is in get-out-the-vote organizing. No substitute for shoe leather and grit.

Because big business supports Republicans, and Republicans support big business. Corporate America outspends unions roughly 9-1 in national elections. Probably more than that now thanks to recent Supreme Court decisions. Where unions really make a difference is in get-out-the-vote organizing. No substitute for shoe leather and grit.

 

Do you realize the number of programs that have gone to support big business since Obama has taken over? Insurance companies thought they were getting a deal to have everyone purchase insurance. 2 major auto makers bailed out by the government and supported by cash for clunkers. The green energy businesses that have received millions of dollars to run their businesses. These are just some of the programs that have gone to big business owners that support Obama.

 

Why not have the Dems to put out a platform that states their dislike for big business and see how much support it gets. That is what this thread is about, platforms for people to grasp and discuss.

My view on right to work is that it should not be so extreme where it could make joining the union if you chose to difficult. There are some accusations about right to work where in some states it is legal to have newly hired employees sign away their right to unionize. In otherwords, if I take a job at UPS, Ford or GE and decide not to join but after a few years of working decide I want union protection, I should be able to join without much difficulty.

 

I also believe if there should be some protection for the union. Members should not be able to join before the contract negotiation and once the contract is signed, you dump the union. If you join, there should be a minimum time frame to preventing hopping back and forth with convenient.

 

So long as those protections (and maybe some others I am not thinking of at the moment) stay, I am OK with right to work legislation. I just don't want legislation that is called right to work legislation passed which really is not right to work legislation but more like, make union extinct legislation. I want the ability to join to stay.

Good point. Why have wages been declining and millions of members of the middle class been abandoning the ranks of those who are employed or looking for employment under Obama? Why have real wages declined for the past six years? Why are health care costs for working people soaring?

 

About a third of the jobs created on Obama's watch have been created in a single, right to work state - Texas. Why?

 

Maybe wages are declining and healthcare is rising because they aren't unionized. I've gotten a 3% raise every year since 1999 and will continue to get that 3% raise through 2018. 4% raise in 2010. We also received affordable healthcare through 2018 and in 2014 and 2015 our healthcare will be cheaper than it was in 2012 and 2013. And that's for every union member that works for Corning. From Wilmington, Notth Carolina to Blacksburg, Virginia to Harrodsburg, Kentucky to multiple plants in upstate New York. We also look to add jobs at a Danville, Kentucky plant in the near future as well. We're talking thousands of union members receiving rasies and affordable healthcare. You have any data on what the Right-to-Workers are making, raises and healthcare?

 

Again, it doesn't my matter if a state is Right-to-Work. Those jobs can be organized. Texas is a huge state with a lot of people and land. What kind of tax benefits to companies get for moving their business to Texas? What kind of wages are these businesses paying? Are you saying the ONLY reason Texas is adding jobs is because they are a Right-to-Work state? Is that your claim?

 

How many manufacturing in Kentucky are unionized anyways? GM, Corning...who else? Is Ford unionized? Toyota isn't are they? Hitachi isn't. Lexmark? They unionized? I wasn't aware that unionized manufacturing plants were dominating the manufacturing landscape in Kentucky to cause people to want mistakingly want Right-to-Work so badly.

I also believe if there should be some protection for the union. Members should not be able to join before the contract negotiation and once the contract is signed, you dump the union. If you join, there should be a minimum time frame to preventing hopping back and forth with convenient.

 

You see a lot of griping among people who want the union of convenience at places with high turnover like UPS. They hate paying the teamsters the whole time they're there and there's a lot of whinging until that moment they get in an accident that's almost no one's fault and they're real happy when they don't get immediately fired on the spot.