Obama Vs. Boeing

[PurplePride92]

Tell that to the people that have already been hired in SC that stand to lose their jobs if this travesty goes through.

 

It is what it is. I am still proud to be in a union and always will be.

 

I think it is kind of funny that you support the right to work cause. That's the ticket. Allow companies to hire and fire as they choose whether it is fair or not. Shortchange employees with their healthcare and other various benefits. Complete and total lack of job protection. Yeah, right to work is the way to go. Ask the 50 non union employees at my factory how that worked out for them when it came time to lay off company and union employees three years ago. All the union employees are back at the plant now. None of the company ones are though. Oh yeah, right to work is the way to go.

[woodsrider]

I also noted that this came in the opinion part of the paper which means there is another side to the story. As a union employee I am not mad at Obama. Seems like he is looking out for union jobs.

 

Shouldn't the President be looking out for all workers? Union should not figure into the equation.

[PurplePride92]

Shouldn't the President be looking out for all workers? Union should not figure into the equation.

 

Absolutely. But like I said, I am a union employee. Obama(and pretty much all Democrats) has always looked out for unions. I am a Democrat(solid liberal according to the Pew test). What do you expect me to say? The guys I voted for are looking out for me. That's the way politics are. Am I supposed to be against what we both are fundamentally for? When the roles are reversed then obviously we are going to scream against the system and how Repubicans are anti-union and want to get rid of all unions and make every state a right to work state which I am against for a multitude of reasons. When the guy that unions are for is doing his job and taking care of those who indeed voted for him and support him why in the world would I be against him or anything he does that appears to benefit union empoyees? If the roles were reversed then thousands of jobs would still be taken away from people except those people would be union people and not right to work people but that makes it okay if they aren't union people because unions are evil and don't deserve to have jobs because they are unionized.

 

And that is just the fundamental argument to this situation. The person who wrote this opinion piece wrote it from an anti-union viewpoint. Where is the informed counter-argument that Obama(or the NLRB) is doing the right thing? There has to be one somewhere in this world of slanted liberal media. In this slanted liberal media world we live in there should be a least 5 counter-argument opinion pieces on this matter. Present me with that and then let's see if you guys can offer up an open minded perspective and then I'll give you an open-minded perspective. Until then, I'll keep on defending the union's right to have politics working in their favor. After reading this opinion piece and the opinions on this board all that is happening, in my opinion, is politics working for the unions. If it needs to be changed and Boeing should be in South Carolina then I trust the Supreme Court to make the right decision.

[cammando]

The Supreme Court has long held that firms may consider the economic effect of strikes when making business decisions...

[PurplePride92]

The Supreme Court has long held that firms may consider the economic effect of strikes when making business decisions...

 

So it appears that Boeing will be allowed to continuing building and eventually open in South Carolina, correct? Am I thinking correctly in the assumption that the Supreme Court will rule against the NLRB?

[All Tell]

Absolutely. But like I said, I am a union employee. Obama(and pretty much all Democrats) has always looked out for unions. I am a Democrat(solid liberal according to the Pew test). What do you expect me to say? The guys I voted for are looking out for me. That's the way politics are. Am I supposed to be against what we both are fundamentally for? When the roles are reversed then obviously we are going to scream against the system and how Repubicans are anti-union and want to get rid of all unions and make every state a right to work state which I am against for a multitude of reasons. When the guy that unions are for is doing his job and taking care of those who indeed voted for him and support him why in the world would I be against him or anything he does that appears to benefit union empoyees? If the roles were reversed then thousands of jobs would still be taken away from people except those people would be union people and not right to work people but that makes it okay if they aren't union people because unions are evil and don't deserve to have jobs because they are unionized.

 

And that is just the fundamental argument to this situation. I don't want anyone to lose their jobs (except maybe the crooks that run the unions) free-thinking or union. The person who wrote this opinion piece wrote it from an anti-union viewpoint. Where is the informed counter-argument that Obama(or the NLRB) is doing the right thing? There has to be one somewhere in this world of slanted liberal media. In this slanted liberal media world we live in there should be a least 5 counter-argument opinion pieces on this matter. Present me with that and then let's see if you guys can offer up an open minded perspective and then I'll give you an open-minded perspective. Until then, I'll keep on defending the union's right to have politics working in their favor. After reading this opinion piece and the opinions on this board all that is happening, in my opinion, is politics working for the unions. If it needs to be changed and Boeing should be in South Carolina then I trust the Supreme Court to make the right decision.

 

Now you're reaching. If you want to throw your hard earned money to what I consider a corrupt system then go for it but don't try to impose your will on everyone. Answer my question, if unions are such a great thing they why in places where people have a choice is union membership plummeting? If unions are as great are you believe they are it seems to me that a state's right to work status wouldn't have an effect on membership and they would need to be supported like this.

[PurplePride92]

Now you're reaching. If you want to throw your hard earned money to what I consider a corrupt system then go for it but don't try to impose your will on everyone. Answer my question, if unions are such a great thing they why in places where people have a choice is union membership plummeting? If unions are as great are you believe they are it seems to me that a state's right to work status wouldn't have an effect on membership and they would need to be supported like this.

 

 

You consider unions a corrupt system. I consider big business to be a corrupt system. I don't think there is any question I can properly answer that will appease you. There is nothing you can say to make me feel that right to work is the way things should be either.

 

I enjoy knowing that my job, my healthcare, my benefits and my retirement are very well taken care of. That is the best answer I can give you. I really don't know what else I can tell you as far as my stance on unions. If there wasn't a union my company doesn't have to give me healthcare, benefits, retirement, fair wages, bonus checks, etc etc. The list goes on and on. They could do with me as they choose for no reason. My union and others prevent that from happening. Forgive me for siding with that. I love my union protected job and all that comes with it.

[woodsrider]

Absolutely. But like I said, I am a union employee. Obama(and pretty much all Democrats) has always looked out for unions. I am a Democrat(solid liberal according to the Pew test). What do you expect me to say? The guys I voted for are looking out for me. That's the way politics are. Am I supposed to be against what we both are fundamentally for? When the roles are reversed then obviously we are going to scream against the system and how Repubicans are anti-union and want to get rid of all unions and make every state a right to work state which I am against for a multitude of reasons. When the guy that unions are for is doing his job and taking care of those who indeed voted for him and support him why in the world would I be against him or anything he does that appears to benefit union empoyees? If the roles were reversed then thousands of jobs would still be taken away from people except those people would be union people and not right to work people but that makes it okay if they aren't union people because unions are evil and don't deserve to have jobs because they are unionized.

 

And that is just the fundamental argument to this situation. The person who wrote this opinion piece wrote it from an anti-union viewpoint. Where is the informed counter-argument that Obama(or the NLRB) is doing the right thing? There has to be one somewhere in this world of slanted liberal media. In this slanted liberal media world we live in there should be a least 5 counter-argument opinion pieces on this matter. Present me with that and then let's see if you guys can offer up an open minded perspective and then I'll give you an open-minded perspective. Until then, I'll keep on defending the union's right to have politics working in their favor. After reading this opinion piece and the opinions on this board all that is happening, in my opinion, is politics working for the unions. If it needs to be changed and Boeing should be in South Carolina then I trust the Supreme Court to make the right decision.

 

What I don't understand is that unions claim to be for the working man but in reality they are only for the working man who is paying dues to said union. They really couldn't care less for everyone else. You say the 1000 jobs won't really be lost in SC but that simply isn't true. It's 1000 jobs that weren't there before but are now. It doesn't matter if those 1000 people that were hired already had jobs when they were hired because someone had to be hired to replace them at their former position. No matter how you cut it 1000 people will be out of work in SC now.

[woodsrider]

You consider unions a corrupt system. I consider big business to be a corrupt system. I don't think there is any question I can properly answer that will appease you. There is nothing you can say to make me feel that right to work is the way things should be either.

 

I enjoy knowing that my job, my healthcare, my benefits and my retirement are very well taken care of. That is the best answer I can give you. I really don't know what else I can tell you as far as my stance on unions. If there wasn't a union my company doesn't have to give me healthcare, benefits, retirement, fair wages, bonus checks, etc etc. The list goes on and on. They could do with me as they choose for no reason. My union and others prevent that from happening. Forgive me for siding with that. I love my union protected job and all that comes with it.

I am not union and my company provides all of those things. And what is fair wages? And no company could do with you as they choose. You have a choice to either work for that company or quit. There is a reason companies offer benefits without being forced too. They know the only way to get good workers is to pay well and offer benefits. If you don't your competion will.

 

I don't have a problem with unions when they are actually doing good. The problem is that doesn't happen much any more.

[acemona]

Are any of you guys familiar with the "iron law of wages"?

[PurplePride92]

What I don't understand is that unions claim to be for the working man but in reality they are only for the working man who is paying dues to said union. They really couldn't care less for everyone else. You say the 1000 jobs won't really be lost in SC but that simply isn't true. It's 1000 jobs that weren't there before but are now. It doesn't matter if those 1000 people that were hired already had jobs when they were hired because someone had to be hired to replace them at their former position. No matter how you cut it 1000 people will be out of work in SC now.

 

 

I am not seeing it as 1,000 people being out of work. They hadn't began work at Boeing yet. How can they be out of work when they haven't started that work in the first place? How many already work for Boeing and would be transferred in from other Boeing plants? How many got hired by Boeing, quit their jobs and are sitting at home without a paycheck waiting for the plant to open? How many were unemployed before being hired at Boeing? This opinion article leaves a lot of information out that is needed to have an unbiased perspective. I guarantee there are not 1,000 people in SC out of work because of this but you wouldn't know it after reading this article.

[PurplePride92]

I am not union and my company provides all of those things. And what is fair wages? And no company could do with you as they choose. You have a choice to either work for that company or quit. There is a reason companies offer benefits without being forced too. They know the only way to get good workers is to pay well and offer benefits. If you don't your competion will.

 

I don't have a problem with unions when they are actually doing good. The problem is that doesn't happen much any more.

 

 

You are obviously in a good situation without being in a union as I am in a great situation while being in a union. It would be naive and false for me to believe that all companies(big business) wouldn't do right by their employees just as it is would naive and false for people to believe that all unions are corrupt. Hopefully our good fortune and luck in our differing situations will continue on through our respective retirements. It is definitely a corrupt world that seems to be getting more corrupt in these unstable economic times.

[PurplePride92]

Are any of you guys familiar with the "iron law of wages"?

 

I am not familiar with it.

[bballfamily]

Iron Law of Wages was created by Marx and Engels, more commie bull crap. Jobs in America provide more than the minimum needed to just get by. If that law was true, none of us could afford the computers to be on this site.

There are some low paying jobs, but it does not take that much skill to do those jobs. If those individulals want better paying jobs, improve ones skills to get a better job. That is why we have schools.

[woodsrider]

Are any of you guys familiar with the "iron law of wages"?

 

Do you agree with it?