Jump to content


Photo
* - - - - 1 votes

Union thugs gone wild. Sucker punch/rip down tent


  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

#21 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,532
  • Reputation: 1,267
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:31 PM

it's more like eliminating free riders, which i thought you republicans were all for

#22 logic1977

logic1977

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 26-November 08
  • posts: 413
  • Reputation: 68
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:33 PM

as long as that CHOICE. isn't to enter into an exclusive contract between union labor and employers. right-to-work negates that contract, but i guess government interference is a-ok here



not sure I follow you. Even in right to work states you are bound by the labor contract regardless of whether or not you pay dues or are in the union.

#23 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:34 PM

"Free riders" are to assume people aren't capable of negotiating their own deals.

You must be a member of the collective to even have a job. Is that your opinion?

#24 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,416
  • Reputation: 2,348
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:37 PM

I see G5 is putting his "VoterID is totally needed and not discriminatory at all" logic to work on a new subject.

#25 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,416
  • Reputation: 2,348
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:38 PM

If unions really wanted to hurt people they'd hire the Pinkerton Detective Agency to do it for them.

#26 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:38 PM

Care to clarify your analogy?

#27 Kurb

Kurb

    I hit it.

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 13,705
  • Reputation: 4,445
  • LocationILM
Administrators

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:40 PM

AFP is funded by a couple multi-Millionaires, they preach a Conservative Message, but in reality they are just another Lobby group working for big $$$

#28 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 24,416
  • Reputation: 2,348
SUPPORTER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:41 PM

No, people that can think halfway decently can figure it out.

You will just go on spouting whatever you spout so theres really no need for me to work on this.

#29 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,063
  • Reputation: 458
HUDDLER

Posted 11 December 2012 - 09:48 PM

Right.

#30 GOOGLE RON PAUL

GOOGLE RON PAUL

    fleet-footed poster

  • Joined: 06-August 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,532
  • Reputation: 1,267
HUDDLER

Posted 12 December 2012 - 04:20 AM

not sure I follow you. Even in right to work states you are bound by the labor contract regardless of whether or not you pay dues or are in the union.


right to work negates the union's ability to collectively bargain, as people will simply opt out in hopes of continuing to receive the union's benefits.

why does the government have to step in and negate a contract between an employer and a collective of laborers? i thought republicans were all for that sort of thing. you know, laissez-faire, keep big gubmint out of my life

"right to work" is orwellian doublespeak. everyone should have the right to work at, at the least, a living wage. however, the republican version of "right to work" is simply "purposefully removing the ability to organize, and most certainly not guaranteeing any sort of actual right to work"


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users