Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Am I the only one here fighting for worker's rights?

Posted 12 years ago on Jan. 21, 2012, 2:33 p.m. EST by warbles (164)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

People like to act like the struggle for the rights of the american worker ended in the 1950s. Nonsense, there are still oppressive anti-worker laws on the books today, and I am fighting for their repeal.

  1. allow workers to form unions. Did you know it is illegal in the US for workers to form unions? Currently, when a company's labor force becomes unionized, the representing union must come from an outside body. The workers of a company are not allowed to organize on their own terms, they merely have the 'right' to vote yes or no to the terms of some outside corporate 'union' conglomerate.

  2. Eliminate age discrimination in employment law. The days of apprenticeship are over. People have stated that they think students should be paid to go to school, and I agree. In days past, students were able to do vocation internship at places of work with their neighbors to learn trades. That practice should not have died with the times, no one should be forced to work but if a child, with their parent's consent, wants to work for a family friend or neighbor why not let them? It is a violation of their rights to step in, just as it is a violation of a gay person's rights to tell them they can't be with the person they choose.

  3. Give every worker an optional 7% raise by allowing them to not fund the rich people's welfare fund known as FICA. No matter who pays for the poor's health care and retirement, it should NOT come out of the paychecks of hard working Americans. Additionally, allowing them to take the extra 7% their employer has to pay would help them even more during hard economic times.


Shooz has asked me to reword this post and remove the propaganda, which I will gladly do. As follows, here is a rewording/clarification of my post.

  1. I had been told/led to believe that it is illegal for a union to represent the workers of only one company, that unions had to represent the workers of a trade. At any rate, company unions are illegal, and they shouldn't be. Workers should have a choice between joining a company union or a trade union, they shouldn't be forced to join either one or any at all. People have the right to work with no union representation at all if they wish.

  2. Eliminate compulsory education. 19 states require school attendance until students turn 18. It is there if they want it, but as many of you know, education is about the will to learn. If a 17 year old has no desire to be in school, than he will not learn anything if he goes. His problems start at home and go much deeper than anything the school can help him with. Why take resources away from the rest of the students in the class? I will have everyone here that I have basically never attended a day of classroom education of any kind in my life, except as a guest in a friend's class for a day. Which brings us to part b of point 2: Kids should be able to work earlier -if they want to-. Note that I said if they want to, the first time I mentioned this all sorts of people here used classic straw man arguments to claim I was in favor of forced child labor. Ridiculous. Children as young as they like should be able, with their parent's permission, to do vocational internships at places they might like to work someday. I'm not talking about hard manual labor, basically an in-depth field trip they get paid to do. As far as people forcing their children to go to work and confiscating the money, this would be illegal as it currently is. Also it is a cultural issue, if a parent would do this they are already abusing the child whether the law changes or not. It would probably help the child to get away from the parent for a few hours a day, but I digress because this will not be a widespread issue anyway.

  3. I realize that the retirees on Social Security paid into the system. But they did not pay in as much as they are getting back. Everything you get in addition to what you paid, plus a little interest, is being stolen from someone working for minimum wage. The average retiree has a net worth of around $250,000. So on average, retirees do not need SS benefits. I realize some of them do, and even the richer ones are owed what they paid. But rich retirees cannot receive multiples of what they paid into the system without the money being stolen from workers. Which brings us to the second part of point 2:

People should be able to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and never receive a thing in return. Workers opting out now will receive a 7% bonus in their paychecks, plus they will be able to bargain for the other 7% their employer contributes. Or they could drop their half and receive half the number of retirement checks...

I will add a point

  1. (supposed to say "4", software glitch) Let me and my employer negotiate wages with no price floor. I currently work for near minimum wage for a small business. I know the owner, I don't think he makes much more than I do and takes on a whole lot more responsibility and risk than I do. My workplace is within a few hundred feet of my house. We work out terms accordingly, this is the way it should be, an agreement between two people. If the economy gets much worse, my worth as a worker will go down and my employer will need to cut corners. I would rather work for him for less than minimum wage, than for some corporation at minimum wage. Why is it illegal? I don't need to maintain a car or have some of the other expenses a lot of workers have, yet somehow people would have you believe I'm being exploited in my working arrangement. What do I care, if the economy gets worse maybe I'll ask my employer to start paying me under the table instead of me having to get a job somewhere else. Thoughts?



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

No, you're not the only one, warbles. I have been for more than thirty years and continue doing so.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Good for you. The most effective form of economic justice is allowing people the freedom to compete with corporations, and decide whether or not to buy their products.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

the trouble is there are simply not enough jobs to go around

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Not true. The lack of jobs is due to the price floor artificially imposed by the government. China's unemployment rate is around half what our's is.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

China is nor entirely mechanized

we are already

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

No we're not.

Labor is sold based on supply and demand, just like everything else. When there is more labor in the labor force, the price goes down. When there is a price floor imposed, the price cannot drop and unemployment results.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 12 years ago

I believe there are a lot of unmet demands for labor though. Consider our national infrastructure which received C and D grades by the Army Corp of Engineers. It desperately needs to be upgraded or disasters are bound to happen.

We need national projects with national financing to meet these demands. The results would be a better economy which would increase revenue to the state paying off what we would invest in such projects.

There are many other desperate needs like this as well. As a nation we need to identify those needs that would pay off for us.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I agree, we just need to be careful when authoritarian rulers say they want to make investments. We need to be ultra-judicious and demand real investments, not hogwash like bird counting projects. Things that will help the economy. In the last five years, we have witnessed the theft of trillions of taxpayer dollars in the name of stimulating the economy. More often than not, the money just ends up going to some corporation. I think a heavier emphasis must be put on financial stability, instead of publicly funded projects for this reason. There are plenty of people ready to invest their money, but won't out of fear the government will go haywire due to the debt being so high.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 12 years ago

Yes, but I think when you are talking about the theft of trillions you are talking about bank bailouts.

Although we do need financial stability as you say, I don't think individual investments would be concentrated enough to produce the development we need.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Starting in the 1700s, individual investments blew the economic growth through the roof with hardly a single public dollar until the New Deal. If given a way, people will create wealth through the sale of their labor. It is an economic fact, and a part of human nature to seek opportunities and fill them.

The individual investments aren't supposed to be concentrated!

When you give a politician the combined efforts of people and tell them to put it back into the economy, it will always end up in the hands of their cronies! I am in fact talking about bank bailouts, solyndra, auto bailouts, and every other financial theft the government has perpetrated over the last five years. The people asked for health care reform, so the politicians did their cronies a favor by making it illegal not to buy insurance. Some reform!

I cannot emphasize enough the fact that the investments should come from a bunch of small sources rather that one big source!

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 12 years ago

What about for project's like JFK's space program? It was said to have produced $10 in terms of economic development for every $1 put into it. Most of the technical/scientific progress that we had for the past fifty years came from the space program.

It created a whole new industry with high skilled, good paying jobs - the aerospace industry. It also created numerous spinoffs that the private sector took advantage of, such as fiber optics, among many others.

I do agree with you though there is a lot of corruption with the current regime, as well as most of them for the past 50 years. Maybe if Obama were impeached, it could send the signal that this will not be tolerated anymore.

The global financial system was responsible for using money to corrupt politics, and it is collapsing now, so there is an opportunity to change things.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Well, the space program was defense related originally (though, one must admit that their current endevours have been neither defense related nor particularly stimulating to the economy) So I will say I am not universally opposed to such projects. I do maintain that we need to be careful about spending and I think impeaching Obama and a good number of the members of Congress will be a good start.


[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 12 years ago

Obama is currently taking our space program apart setting us back years, if not decades, in terms of science, economic development and defense. We need a crash program like Kennedy had.

That kind of program was intended to improve our economy by an order of magnitude, that is, ten times better than what we had. We need to get excited about real progress again.

Likewise, let's throw the bums out.


[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

the supply available exceeds the demand for labor

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Yeah... just like I said in the post above.

Actually, there is nearly infinite demand for labor, and there always will be. The question that decides if people get to keep their jobs is whether getting a machine to do the work is cheaper.

If the government keeps raising the minimum wage, machines are looking better and better to an employer.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

thats greed again. so you only get 5 million instead of 10 million cause you have to pay labor the other 5 million. that is greed. so instead of doing this.. you claim a loss and close the business... so you give up a potential 5 million for the sake of greed.. as in ' if i cant have it all i will not have any' mentality. that is what has destroyed the system

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

No, that's efficiency. Are consumers greedy for wanting their products to cost half as much? No. Business owners don't keep the extra when they improve efficiency, they use it to reduce costs and provide a better product.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

that would be nice if it was true.. but it isnt they use it to put it in thier pocket.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I guess competition doesn't work...?

I run a small business. I don't set the prices I charge, the market does. If something comes along that improves my efficiency and cuts my costs dramatically, and I don't use that to lower my prices, I'm going out of business because someone else will.

Capitalism: "If it can be done more efficiently by someone, it will be".

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

the system may break

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Yep. Headed that way, unless we repeal minimum wage laws.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

if you dont like them.. go into agriculture. no minimum wage law

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

the people need access to wealth

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Yeah, no hope to make any if you're unemployed.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

They don't do Accurate Chinese unemployment stats.

There's a lot of them, you know.

Some love their jobs so much, they jump off the roof.

And you want to bring that here!

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

And, by bringing European style health care here you want to bring their economic stagnation? Of course you don't.

Straw man arguments for the win.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

we already have the economic stagnation and we have no free healthcare.. so heathcare did not cause their economic stagnation. far from it.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

You're implying that only one thing can cause economic stagnation. That's like saying "Popping the tires of a car won't make it run badly, because my neighbor's car won't run and it's got great tires"

Besides, that wasn't my central point, I didn't even say it would cause economic stagnation. I was showing Shooz how silly his argument was when he implied that I wanted slave labor in the US.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Sorry, red herrings lose.

Where did hear that stat about Chinese unemployment?

And yes, they are jumping off roofs, over working conditions and rate of pay.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

The CIA stats are from urban areas only.

They also include substantial underemployment.

They also state that including migrants the figures would be around 9%.

These are not accurate figures for what you are stating.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Several years ago we had a union member develop lung cancer and when it was medically determined that the worker was terminal the employer attempted cutting off medical benefits for said worker. The local rightly fought tooth and nail and spent great great time and money during that fight. The local eventually won out, but if the person didn't have a union their last year a some months would have been even more agonizing than that time was. We DO still need unions.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I never said we don't. I'm not sure what you read into my post, but I said workers should be allowed to form unions and I hope it happens more often.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

I was simply replying and trying to underscore your assertion in your posted question by citing an example of the need for unions continuing today. Enjoy the remainder of your day.

[-] 2 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

the repelican party is DONE



[-] 0 points by Kirby (25) 0 minutes ago

You have deluded yourself.

↥like ↧dislike reply permalink



That is not very likely. I've been engaged in revolt of the social construct for quite some time - and only articulated a case for revolt in 2009.

Here we are. On the cusp of revolution.

The repelican party has lied - repeatedly - reganonomics is a failure, blue dress stains do not trump issues of national security like terrorism, and Global Warming is here.

Holding up the budget debate with brinkmanship, creating market uncertainty that drove jobs and market numbers down six weeks into that debate, and all for the purpose of political gain - these are all issues of very serious national concern. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road when it comes to our national debt - and we cannot balance the budget on the backs of middle class America.

Repelican policy of economic deregulation has brought us to the brink of economic collapse.

It is inevitable, given both the sum of the lies and the sweeping policy failures - the people will vote these repelican fools out of office.

It's just a matter of time.

It's also a matter of national security.

  • the repelican party is DONE.

You will see this become quite apparent over the course of the next six years.

What is uncertain is whether there will be ice caps left at either pole by that time.

we will see.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Agreed, and the numbers do not lie. A group of 400 U.S. citizens still have a combined net worth of 1.7 trillion dollars.

Can someone help clarify Europe's situation? Their financial troubles are all too easily blamed on their enviable social safety net, universal health care, pensions, and other humane provisions. I suspect but do not have the numbers to prove that the very rich exert an undue influence and are to blame for these problems too.

[-] 1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Yes, the very rich are to blame for Europe's orgy of social spending. Just as in America, health care companies lobby hard to make their overpriced products mandatory.

Wait a second... are you working backwards from the predetermined conclusion that social programs are good and thus cannot create poverty?

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Despite Europe's superior social safety net, real estate speculation ran rampant there and brought their economies down, too. There, as here, unions and government programs are scapegoated as the cause, rather than victims, of rapacious speculation by investment bankers and manipulations of credit default swaps.

[-] 1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Uhhkay. That post had nothing to do with what I said, thanks for spamming. It's incredibly productive.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

there are laws against disability discrimination and retaliation for using med benefits. you don't need a union to enforce your rights.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

The person I wrote of had a union in place to take up his fight for him. He didn't need to use other methods to get his health insurance reinstated. I would like to think that we may have helped to lessen stress for the member and spouse by their not having to figure out what needed to be done, make phone calls, play phone tag, write letters, provide evidence of the claim and medical records, etc. We did that. We represented our member's interests as we are sworn to. We acted as advocate. No attorney needed to be hired and no court litigation was necessary. We actually saved the company from the expense of a law suit.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

TN, I have no reason to doubt your facts. And I would share the view that the union may have saved the company money by not havinig to deal with a lawsuit.

But not all unions are as responsive or effective as yours in that situation. Many, perhaps most, arent. And I was responding to what I took to be implicit in your original comment: that unions were somehow essential to enforce an employees legal protections against discrimination.

BTW, something in the air.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

My apologies for my lack of clarity in the posting you refer to above. Like any entity, a union is only as good as the people in that union try to make it. It takes proper training of officials, both elected and non-elected, vigilance and a spirit of a willingness to work collectively and with the employer to resolve problems and issues. That's true for the employer as well.

PS - "...and you know that it's right!" ;-)

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago
  1. make it mandatory that once a certain level of profit is made, in the company, the company must profit share with the employees, so we dont see one man making a billion dolllars, while the rest just get by.
[-] 2 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 12 years ago

"October 17, 2012: Unemployment officially ends. NECA has hired 17 million Americans to work at one of their one million plus new companies or subsidiaries created during the past nine months in addition to accepting more than two million businesses wanting to convert to a NECA subsidiary. Businesses convert to NECA since they have access to the largest distribution channel of American-made products shipping to 153 allied nations including about 20, NECA Mega-Stores around the globe. Since February 12, NECA has signed more than 85,000 contracts to Private Label American-made products with NECA's name on it. NECA has also obtained more than 70,000 inventions and technologies under their Intellectual Property Program designed to help American entrepreneurs, inventors and innovators receive the proper funding and management team built around their innovation. NECA gives 33 percent lifetime royalties to all inventions excluding humanitarian design projects which inventors receive 10 percent lifetime royalties. Contour Crafting Robotic Housing falls under a humanitarian design patent. The second 33 percent of profits are split between the Executive Team while the remaining 33 percent NECA gives back to “We the People” in need. Millions of highly educated Americans with Master’s Degrees were stocking shelves at retail stores from 2008-2011 to feed their families. Now those same individuals are Chief Financial Officers, Chief Technology Officers, Chief Operating Officers, or Chief Executive Officers at various NECA subsidiaries providing American-made products and services to 153 allied nations. NECA says they still need to hire seven million more Americans to travel abroad to fulfill new nation building contracts such as PODs and 10,000 Food Sky Tower sites. This will total over 24 million Americans hired by NECA in less than a year, of which more than five Million will become teachers, life counselors and social mentors."

[-] 1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Sounds like a great idea to me. That would have stopped WalMart with the one BF store in Bentonville. The 1.2M people working for them today, could have found jobs somewhere else and we could have been free to purchase our "stuff" somewhere else.

I am a businessman - don't expect me to keep working after I reach whatever level of profit YOU determine is enough. I will simply stop at that point and open another business and do the same thing over there.

There would be absolutely no reason to continue operations of a company where the profits just STOPPED one day at your predetermined point.

Good think writing is free, don't you think??

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

the profit did not stop.. the profit was shared with employees... so you show your greed.. if there is profit.. only you get to benefit and let the employees languish. you leaving the company at that point and the employees taking over would be a good thing so what is wrong with that proposal?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I have no idea of how you understand that a business runs. How the hell do you think an employer pays wages if it is not paid out of profit.

Is it just money that suddenly appears, does it come out of the owner's personal checkbook.

Why would I WANT to leave the company at that point. I have operated businesses for quite lengthly periods of time with little or no profit going into my pocket. That does not mean that the employees were not paid during that time.

You have a preset notion of how a business must run in order for you to prescribe what is best for the world. Either open up and wise up to reality or continue to publish nonsense.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

payroll is paid out as an expense not as part of profit profit is what you get after all expenses are paid... profit has nothing to do with paying employees. for instance you could be paying your employee 50k a year.. but you are taking in 1 million in profit. so you could easily afford to share that profit with your employee.. except that greed keeps you from this. payroll certianly does NOt come out of the owners pocket! its an expense just like taxes and electricity

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I fully understand what an expense is. I also understand that the difference between gross income and all expenses is gross profit.

To work this scenerio backwards, if there were no expenses for salaries, the gross profit would be greater, so there IS a relationship. You simply cannot isolate the two. The relationship between these two, profit and salaries is the very reason that you see out-sourcing today.

Failure to recognize this relationship, is failure to realize why things happen the way we see them happen.

If you can work a scenerio where "profit has nothing to do with paying employees", please explain. You might also explain why, if an employee is seen as an expense, and accepts income to offset that expense, they should have any right to the profit that remains and WHY the employer should even consider doing so.

While you are at it, please explain how you would figure an honest profit for a company that has a plant and related facilities, a company where both the husband and wife work full time, etc. Unless everyone knows who you determine who could easily afford to share, we need to know what you are considering in your determination.

Simply stating that an employee makes 50k a year working for a company that has a $1m profit does not answer the question. Is he the only employee, what is produced, what does it take to produce the goods. etc.

We seem to be making this all a very simple judgement without looking at all the facts that would have to be considered to arrive at a fair determination of right and wrong.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

i didnt say it wasnt related.. i said.. after expenses.. after all thats needed to fund the company is spent.. there is profit free clear profit. as for the certain point in profit , im not talking about 1 million thats not very much. im talking about 500million. or a billion, no one man has any use for that much money none he will die before he spends it his kids will die before they spend it and his grandkids will die before they spend it. and then when his line dies out there will still be 100 million left over. what is wrong with him sharing that money with the people who helped him get it?

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

What is wrong is this:

You eye simply follows the MONEY and makes assumptions to justify your final proposal.

Let me make myself very clear. I own a business that I work full time in. I have invested a significant amount of my own money into that business - this represents money that I earned while a salaried employee over the past 35 years. I invested that money, assumed the risk for total profit or total loss PLUS a fair salary for my work time.

I, therefore, should be paid as follows:

  1. A fair wage - based upon my education and work experience, this would probably be around $208,000 per year.

  2. A fair return on my investment, probably 8-10% per year.

  3. A fair return on my risk assumption by investing in the company.

Now you figure it out and tell me what part of the profit of that business should belong to me as a sole owner-proprietor. And for example purposes, let's say that my investment today is around $3M carrying $.5M in loans, and my risk factor is about 5 on a scale of 1-10, meaning that I stand to loose 50% of my investment if the business fails.

Go figure this before you talk about dividing it all up and giving it to someone else, will you please.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

the employee has 10 on the risk factor.. you dont think they should be paid? if the business fails they lose 100%. but only you should be paid for this? no one should be paid for risk any way thats just bull you make a bet and if you win ok if you dont get over it.. you should get extra money paid to you if you lose? thats greed covered in legalese

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

HEY - can you make a little sense out of what you mean.

When you say, "the employees taking over" what do you mean. Taking over the owner's investment in land, buildings, equipment, etc. You are making no sense simply stating take over. Do you mean they would take over and lease the owner's property.

You leave so many questions unanswered that you really do not express any idea at all.

I am a business owner myself - there is no greed in controlling your own business and promoting sales or production to whatever level you as the owner decide - this is not a communist country as you seem to want it to be.

This entire mantra of "take over" simply is absurd. If you think you or anyone else is going to just walk into anything and "take over" you are probably just wanting someone else to take care of you. Suggest you get over it and "take over" something that you can purchase or create yourself and get your "eye" off mine.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

i was replying to the idea that at a certain point in profit.. the company could be required to share the excess profit with the employees instead of just himself. the other guy said he would leave and go else where.. well good.. he could do so.. the company could continue in the profit and the employees could keep working.. just one man running the company is not necessary as we saw with steve jobs.. the company still profited after he was out so his ownership wasnt needed .. the employees took over and reaped the profit only in that instance , just the managerial employees not the real workers.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Here again, you do not provide enough information to know what you are talking about. The employee MIGHT not be the only one's with a right to share in those profits. In a corporation, there are thousands of shareholders who might think that they are more entitled to the profits than the employees are.

If you think that Steve Jobs left without taking any part of the company with him, I very much expect that you are wrong. I expect that you would find that Steve, like all the workers, was paid an annual salary. In addition, I am sure he owned stock, which meant that he has an interest in the actual company in addition to being a paid employee.

Who ever took his place, simply took his salaried job. They did not take his interest in the company when they took over his job.

The company may still be profitable, but ownership WAS NOT changed by his leaving the company.

Likewise, what you are advocating without an understanding of how the whole picture looks, is the very thing that got us into this economic disaster (housing) recently. The people, and to a certain extent, even the government regulators DID NOT know what the financial institutions were doing or at least overlooked what they were doing and thus we have the housing crisis.

I very much expect that if you were allowed the freedom to proceed with your proposal, we would reach the same point in the business sector. And such is a danger to everyone.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

i doubt that.. because people who actually create products do not think like that.. they think.. lets produce more product so we make more money.. they dont think.. lets get rid of about half these losers in here and make more money... like the owners 'and stockholder' think. or ' lets go find someone stupid an desperate enough to work for half price and make more money... as in outsourcing so i think the entire system would work better for more people

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

So paying the vig to the mob, should always come first in your book?

I though you guys hated mob rule, guess I was wrong.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Sorry, here again you are ahead of me.

What is "vig" and who are "you guys".

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I think I just have a clearer picture.

The vig is what you pay the ever so mysterious "investors".

Really, that just means WallStreet. Although they let you by into the vig, they get the loins share.

You demand the vig be paid before the workers.

Since there are "thousands" of "investors", you say they should be paid before the lowly number of workers employed.

That's mob rule.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

There is not a lot of mystery associated with who "investors" are in the majority of business and even if there is, what difference does it make. We are talking about MONEY invested, not NAMES of people invested.

If, I invest $100.00 in you, at some point in time, I expect to get my $100.00 back. In the meantime, I would expect that if you do well, I would receive a little additional back every year or at maturity. However, if you do not do well, I would not expect anything back every year and perhaps not even the $100.00. This is called RISK.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Risk my ass.

It's all about the vig.

Even the guy who crashed Lehmann's walked away with an additional $500,000,000.

Risk runs strictly downhill in their world.

The poor schmuck who took the job at McDonald's takes the biggest risk.

He's got a job that just might wipe him out, just by going to work every day.


They don't know what it is.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

BS, I never said anything of the sort. If you are dealing with profits, the workers are ALREADY been paid. The stockholders or investors are actually the last ones to get a return on their investment. Look at a profit and loss statement from WALMART or some other large corporation and you will see how this is done and in what sequence.

I merely stated, that before the employees should be allowed to come into the MONEY chain again, after having been paid their salaries, that the stockholders have to be considered. I could care less who fights over what is left at that point. BUT, no seconds until everyone involved has eaten - OK??

MOB rule comes into place when you assume that you do not have to know what the sequence is for distribution of profits is.

I will be glad to share with you the fact that I have 100 shares of an airline company which is still paying its workers every day - but those shares are worth zilch, zero, nada, not tradeable, have no vested interest in even a toilet from one of the airplanes. And somehow, you think that I said investors should have been paid bedore the lowly workers - get real shooz, you are reading your beliefs into the wrong pages herein.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

My point is this.

WallStreet works like the mafia.

You don't pay the ever rising vig. the "investment loan" gets called in.

Effectively breaking you companies legs.

The rest of the mobs will likely follow and kill your business entirely.

At that point they call in a guy like Romney to rape it, cut it up, and rob whatever is left.

Mob rule.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

May I ask a simple question - what is the basis of your statements. Is it personal experience, college class discussions, insider knowledge etc.

I really like to know who I am discussing things with So far you have only stated how you think things are. What is the basis for what you claim??

I would feel bad if I said you don't know what you are talkking about and then found out that you were a wall street trader, banker etc.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Knowing how they work, seeing through the constant propaganda.

Watching a head hunter in Armani suspenders do his work.

The results of their actions.

Who gets rich and who gets poor.

It's all in front of your face.

Shut off the news. Shut off the TV and Radio too.

Take an unbiased look around at what's happening all over the World.

If they're big enough, an "investment" bank, has no qualms about taking down a whole country that misses the vig.

Even if they "entice" you to take the "loan" for your own protection.

Miss the vig, and your Greece.

Gotta make an example for the next guys in line.

You hear that Italy??



Mobsters, with armies.

Extortion on a World wide scale.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Okay. Then no one will invest in a business unless they have a chance of getting it back plus.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

no one has invested in my business, so my heart doesnt bleed for them, maybe people will invest in small business for a change instead of corporatism. i actually had contracts on the table that would have created two jobs.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

What makes you think that there is no investment in small businesses. Take a walk along any five random blocks in your city and point out the small business and you can BET that someone invested in those businesses.

Even Sam Walton invested a lot in small business long before he invested in any corporation.

Don't assume that small business does not have investors, that there is not a lot invested. Do not assume that of the family farmers either, they have more invested that most of us will evey invest in any corporation. \

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

So...is it alright for a small business owner to earn an 80K salary while paying 10 employees 60K (earning 8K per employee) but not OK for a CEO of a company employing 100,000 people to earn 10 million dollars at $100 per employee?.....

[-] 2 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

what the hell does he need 10 million dollars for? does he need more food, more air? more water? what does he really need is the question. Im apalled, also at the attitudes against "illegal aliens" when we all are illegal aliens, u just have to back date it to 1492 and all the illegal children left here. What if the earth consisted of just america, would we say, sorry you cant live on our earth, god gave it to us not you, when god made the earth to produce inabundance, and it naturally is plentiful and enough to spare? case in point, the majority of land is open, empty and ready to inhabit, ignoring the greedy land hogs (gov included) who deny us citizens our freedom to live on it without making some other man claiming to own it rich first, its absurd! Instead, we focus our small minds on the low paying jobs they are stealing by working at out mddonalds, and taco bell.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Is it really a question of "he need" or is it more a question of "I want" Can you look at anything other than the 10 million dollar guys.

If you have a three bedroom house and I have none, can I ask what "hell does he need a three bedroom home for"? Does he need more room, more air, more things. I only have a one bedroom apartment, so that means I should be able to take at least one of your bedrooms.

The only thing that I see as absure about your land example is that you assume that "the majority of land is open, empty and ready to inhabit" Most of the land you are referring to is located in the part of the country that I live in and believe me - you would not want to even try to live there. Today, some of it has over 100 inches of snow, some of it has not seen rain in over 6 months, some of it headed into 102 degree weather, some of it if almost vertical, Yeah, a lot of this if government land - being the greedy land hogs that they are.

As for myself, I DO NOT want to visit the Grand Canyon next summer and see you and yours living in a tent down by the Colorado River along with a few thousand other people who think that it is absurd that this land is not theirs for the taking.

[-] -1 points by slammersworldisback (-217) 12 years ago

"need" is not a question appropriately asked by anyone but the person earning the money...why do YOU "need" what you have.....certainly there are those who have less than you who could lay claim to your property on the grounds that you have more than you need....

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

that has no merit, for those who had less than me would have a great need, whereas the 10 million dollar man has more than enough for himself and others. its arguementative, and doesnt move forward, u might as well also say that the 99% have no reason to complain against the 1%

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

You may be right - but two examples out of over 3M in America alone does not a case make. You have simply selected two examples and written a book that is not going to sell.

You also make the almighty statement that "u might as well also say that the 99% have no reason to complain against the 1%" How do you see the person in the 98% - is it ok for them to complain when they might be only $1.00 difference in the 98%er and the 99%er.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Would you like some ice for that Buuuurn?

Seriously, what is wrong with someone creating jobs at 100$ each in the scenario?

[-] 1 points by learnthis (120) 12 years ago

who is shooz to censor what you have to say. however some parent feel there is nothing wrong with their kids making porno movies when they are seven and sweeping the neighborhood bars when they are six. Sad to say as long as there is stupid in the world we will need laws to protect children.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

under the table would help more americans, than any other way, other than a robin hood style of tax the rich to give to the poor which is non-existant b.t.w. Its like comparing russia to communism, or china, when noone other than jesus and his followers ever tried true communism.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

So true communism is voluntary, right? Not system-wide?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 12 years ago

yes it is voluntary, based upon charity and sharing the abundance of the earth, not like the millions of acres of empty land we see today hogged up by the rich that could house poor people.

[-] 1 points by oscar123 (1) 12 years ago

speaking of workers rights, does anyone know anything about this company? I was thinking about trying to get a job there, but then I found this online.....http://www.indeed.com/forum/cmp/Goodwill-Industries/get-job-at-Goodwill-Industries/t30816

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Rather than improve public education so it provides what every child needs, as opposed to what it's been since its inception (a way to produce good factory workers and other cogs in a system), you propose to return to the days of Abraham Lincoln, who walked eight miles barefoot to school and learned to read, as he had the "will to learn," which I understand and appreciate very well. Just be clear that this is what you are proposing.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Oh, darn it! You figured out my master plan!

I awake every morning with a sorrowful heart when I see children riding cars to school.. Those tender little feet are worthless without the calluses caused by miles of walking to school. When will this nation wake up and enforce my master plan of child abuse? Oh for the day.

There's a lump of feces in the house. You're saying "Let's bake a tasty and nutritious cake out of it!" and I'm saying "Let's get it out of the house!"

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Sarcasm doesn't help solve problems.

We need to arrive at an agreement about what children need. Since the children are here now, we must do the best we can right now while we continue refining the debate and weighing the research. Let's at least use research from creditable institutions rather than religious organizations to inform our opinions and approaches.

I don't understand your last paragraph.


[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

Unite in common cause. Hate the things that are wrong in this world. Support each-other in making things right. This is where the healing will begin.

The Government of "The People" by "The People" for "The People"

We are the 99%. Take part in "The Peoples" Lobby.

Take action. See samples of how below.

196,030 signatures so far for Bernie Sanders petition as of 9:40am central time 01/27/2012


The petition to save abandoned houses has 16 signatures. We picked one up at around 11:07am 01/16/2012. Were just rolling right along.


Here is a place where you can directly address change. Take part, it does not hurt and may very well heal/help. Forward the cause of reform and rebirth.


Sierra Club has some good things to take part in as well. Set-up and ready for you to take part in. http://sierraclub.org/

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 12 years ago

It's the same in the UK

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

What is?

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 12 years ago

Anti union policies

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Ah gotcha.

[-] 1 points by Spade2 (478) 12 years ago

No problem

[-] 1 points by nichole (525) 12 years ago

I discovered through Occupy that the IWW is still going strong and I met with local card-carrying members. So no, you are not the only one. Anti-militarist, pro-Labor. Solidarity.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

yes maybe child labor if the parents prove they make about 200k a year. otherwise the poor people will force thier kids to work just like they did before child labor laws were enacted.. why do you think those laws were made? to protect kids from their parents! child abuse is rampant .. people sell thier daughters into prostitution for christ sake and you want to enable this for all children in all vocations under protection of law? and you expect a beaten terrorized kid to say "no i dont really want to work."

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

That's a social problem that the government cannot fix. If a child's parents are the type to force them to work and steal their earnings, the child will not have a good home life no matter what the government does.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

yes.. thats why there are laws.. the government did do something about that. .

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Gothenburg, NE 12 years ago

"Worker's rights" assumes that the Industrial Economy is still legit. As it is no longer viable, replace it with the dual maxims of "all are created equal" and assert your "right to live", then make your own society.

Seriously , worker's rights became passe when literacy rates went above 50%.

[-] 1 points by America921 (161) 12 years ago

My only problem with unions is they are run by bureaucrats who make 6 figure incomes, and to justify those incomes they make ridiculous deals with the government. Unfortunately some dumb ass politicians made some very bad moves and now we have to cut pensions. Plus I would never use Union labor because it's unreliable, expensive and they do a crappy job. That's how the unions around Chicago are I don't know about other places, but here in Chicago Union Labor kinda sucks.

[-] 2 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Yes. Unions are another form of corporation, the product they sell is collective bargaining service. And like any corporation, they corrupt politicians to make it illegal not to buy their services.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

My services as a union representative are as an unpaid volunteer. This is true for many, many of those who serve in unions locals.

[-] 2 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

This is certainly true of me as well. I served as a union officer for nine years and didn't receive a penny for it. Without union officers the union ceases to exist. I knew someone had to do it, so I did it. Luckily someone else stepped up to the plate when I couldn't do it anymore.

Who has the most money: all the unions combined or all the corporations combined?

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Being a union rep. is a labor of love, pardon the pun. It's important sevice and those who serve really get vebally beaten on from all sides. It tests one's resolve, to be sure!

[-] 2 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

It's a fight one is lucky to be able to have. Times are indeed rough if people never get to help out this way.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Of course you're 1,000% correct. We're happy to help in any way that we can. Volunteer, donate, organize. It's very likely we're "preaching to the choir" here in this forum, though. Lots of good folks here, it would seem.

I know I'm not alone in this, but when I help others I think I get WAAAY more out of it than they do. And that's something we can't put a price on.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

So many employees go way out of their way to help others, no matter what their line of work. These are the 99.9% of our world. They (we) "volunteer," "donate," and "organize" enough already. If we weren't already burned out on all of this organizing, volunteering, and donating that has gone on for the last twenty or so years (of my life, anyway), Occupy Wall Street wouldn't have come about. This is a worldwide revolution.

The worldwide scope of this actually makes our nation's 99% more wealthy than many in the developing world. However, this does not diminish the validity of our principles. But I thought it might make us feel a little better.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Well my friend, as you well know change is coming. Change is the only constant in the world. What we have put up with cannot stand. We thank all who work to make things better for everyone. We're most appreciative of their sacrifices and efforts.

These are the times that make life worth living - the air of possibilities, the energy, the vibe, if you will. These are times that invigorate and motivate us. We live for the kind of work that is represented by this movement. If this doesn't excite us, then what ever would? It's who we are; it's the core of us.

[-] 0 points by learnthis (120) 12 years ago

that's just plain stupid to work for nothing when you are doing the work for an organization that makes money. Would you work for Walmart for free? If they don't value you enough to pay you maybe you should spend your free time working for a real charity.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Unions are NOT businesses, they are workers' rights organizations that advocate for their members. Since I too am a member of the union I represent. I too receive the benefits of things I advocate in my union work.

Not everthing can be measured simply in terms of dollars and cents, either. There's a sense of personal satisfation that comes from service to others. Volunteers in community service know this feeling. Local food banks, Habitat For Humanity, Big Brothers and Sisters, etc. have people who work with them without any monetary compensation and those who volunteer their time and effort would tell you that what they take away from the experience is far greater than any effort they put into it.

If you don't know this, I recommend you try volunteering for something you feel passion and compassion about. You may find you really enjoy it.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Is that true of your boss in the union? In your state, is it illegal to work without being a union member? If so, there is hardly a more anti-worker law in existence.

[-] 3 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Have you heard of the "right to work" laws some states are passing? Don't they sound just great? The phrase "right to work" sounds as if they are giving more people more jobs by giving them the "right to work." However, they are only giving people the "right to work" for less pay. This is kind of a return to the "good ol' days" like before the 40 hour work week and labor contracts.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I know, right? Workers are too stupid to understand if they want to join a union or not, so we need to make that decision for them. Just like abortion!

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

You said it, not I.

You are merely playing "devil's advocate" and are not engaging in serious debate. Many enjoy that game.

When you rejoin the "adults in the room" we can continue the debate.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

What he is saying is, it is no different for you or I deciding whether or not a woman keeps her fetus than if a worker decides to join a union. If you are not the woman, the baby, the worker, or the small-business owner employing him, it is of no consequence to you or I.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Right. Let's keep equating apples and oranges and see how far we get in solving any of our world's real problems.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

Your argument is so beyond logic and reason it is hard to even think in such terms. You think it is permissible to force people to buy a product "for the greater good"? That is no different from saying people should conform to a specific religious belief, to make them all peaceful citizens. Ridiculous. Do you really want an apples-to-apples comparison? I have one. A union is really nothing more than an advocacy group. A corporation that sells bargaining services. Do you think small business owners should be forced to join the chamber of commerce? Or any other industry-affiliated organization?

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Only folks with some ax to grind subscribe to your thinking. Most people understand the practical reason behind having people automatically sign up and welcome being signed up. If there had been significant outrage over this, things would have changed. Me thinks you doth protest too much.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

" If there had been significant outrage over this, things would have changed."

The same has been said all through history when people's rights were being trampled. That is the whole idea of a right, to protect a minority group when the majority wants to oppress them. That is why we do not have strict majority rule, some things are off-limits. Besides, a poll conducted last September indicates that 72 percent of Pennsylvanians support taking away forced unionism.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

It's a small point, but perhaps with today's electronic communications, it's easier for individuals to either sign up or not for union membership. In the old days it was more difficult. You'll probably see a lot more people sign up voluntarily through e-mail or electronically, and this issue will become moot. You will discover it is not as emotionally fraught an issue as you might think, and that "peoples rights" have not been "trampled." It is only a clerical issue.


[-] -1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Less union dues too.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Union dues are minimal compared to the salary cuts most Americans have enjoyed over the last twenty years.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Seriously though, no one should ever be forced to join an organization of any kind, union or otherwise. If people truly believe it is for their own good, they will join voluntarily.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Please describe precisely what you mean by "forced."

Is there violent force involved? Are the police called?

Perhaps it is more the case that union protections are granted when a collective bargaining unit automatically collects dues, which are very minimal, so as to MAKE IT EASIER for employees to focus on EXCELLENCE IN THE WORKPLACE.

Just a thought. Perhaps your use of the word "forced" is a bit hyperbolic and exaggerated. Perhaps you are receiving "help" in the drafting of your replies.

[-] 2 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

By forced, I mean that in a lot of states, people are required (unless they know a good employment lawyer) to join a union when accepting a certain job, regardless of whether or not they want to join the union.

Again, I have nothing against unions, if people want to join them, that's fine.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Thirteen percent of workers belong to a union, versus about 30 percent in 1970. Not many people are influenced by unions.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Which is why it shouldn't be required in order to accept a certain job.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Have you heard of companies which threaten to and actually succeed in firing employees whom they think are trying to unionize? This has happened to my sister-in-law. Employees began forming their own union and their positions were cut. It is not as simple as people deciding to join and then being able to join. There are many forces within our current capitalist system which come into play when workers try to unionize. Perhaps this is why some professions have decided to have their members automatically signed up. Otherwise employees are targeted unfairly.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

If it is my money, I get to decide if the dues are minimal or not. You're really sounding like a conservative here, saying people's decision's need to be made for them. I have pity.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

There are ways to opt out of paying union dues, but most people realize it is not in their own best interests to do so. Some, like yourself, enjoy opting out for its own sake, rather than out of the usual sense of economic self-interest which governs most people's lives.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

Yes, some people overcome purely selfish economic reasoning and try to do what is fair, regardless of whether it is the best thing for themselves. Some people don't want to opt out, but don't like the decision being made for them. It has to do with independent thought and testosterone levels.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

"Fair." It appears you think it "fair" that 400 people own 1.7 trillion dollars of the wealth in our nation.

"Fair" is the issue. You aren't capable of thinking "fairly." Sorry.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

I won't go into the fact that wealth is an arbitrary and mathematically relative number, or the fact that everyone in Zimbabwe at one point had 1.7 trillion dollars, because you seem to be incapable of thinking in economic terms. It is beside the point anyway.

I work for a small business. I see the struggles of the owner every day. I realize it is not "fair" for him to have to pay my wages and union dues on top of that, because his business would go bankrupt if he had to. He doesn't make hardly any more money than I do, and he takes much more risk than I do. If anything, I am getting over because I pretty much just do my job and don't take any risk in the matter. Yes, it would not be "fair" of me to ask him for more money. Good thing I don't live in a forced unionism state, or I wouldn't have a job right now.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

Just small-minded thinking, not very aspirational. I thought humanity could do better than this. I must learn to face the reality of such limited aspirations for the way we live.

It still doesn't mean I deny that 400 U.S. citizens still own 1.7 trillion dollars and this is just wrong.


[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 12 years ago

"Right to work", it's about time that a person can work without being FORCED to join a union.

[-] 0 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

The "right to work" is such a wonderful right we should all enjoy. Due process, set in motion by the Magna Carta, is a right only those with legal representation enjoy, however. Union dues are collected to pay for legal representation since most can't otherwise afford it.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 12 years ago

union dues are forcilbly "collected" to support the dem party candidates and provide the unions with political clout. when the dues are not automatically deducted from paychecks, the contribution go way down.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

In my union, dues have increased from around $90.00 a month to $98.00 a month over the last twenty-two years I've paid them. They pay for legal representation in case a hearing was required in the due process of my job evaluation.

Please describe the degrees of "force" involved in your word "forcibly" when referring to monthly union dues collection. Are the police called? Are people terrified? You make it sound like a form of terrorism or something. Please dispense with the melodrama.

Over my years of service I've rarely encountered a disgruntled employee in this regard.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

I'm sorry you and all of your coworkers have been brainwashed into having a cable bill's worth of money stolen from you every month. and you thank them for it. Can anyone here say "Stockholm"?

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 12 years ago

I don't subscribe to cable, and I continue to thank my union for legal protections it affords me, whether you like it or not. You seem angry about something. Are you concerned that perhaps YOU have been brainwashed in some way and are just projecting that theory onto others? Perhaps you need to talk it out with someone. There is no room for your anger here.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

No, I am not angry. All I am saying is, if you like your union and you are happy with them, then I am glad for you. It is absolutely your right to join and form unions and if someone was trying to take that right away from you I'd be there alongside you fighting for that right. But, you cannot put your personal choices on me. If I wish to go without union representation, that is my right too. Over 22 years, at an average of $95 per month, you realize you have paid the union right at $25,000 over your career? If you feel that it was worth it, then I am happy for you, just as I said. But I would rather go it alone, and I have a right to.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 12 years ago

force as in automatic ( not voluntary) paycheck deduction.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

The district rep is a salaried employee of the National. There are District Reps for the National all over the country. The national officers, etc. are salaried. All local officers, executive board members (the local has an exec. board), shop stewards, etc. are unpaid volunteers.

If a representative for the local conducts union business during scheduled hours of work the rep. is allowed to take unpaid leave time from the company and the local then compensates the rep. at his or her hourly rate of pay.

My state is not a "right to work" state. However union membership is not required as a condition of employment where I work. I can't speak for others who are elsewhere in my state as to what conditions of employment may be in place for them (any requirements are most likely due to agreements between companies and those locals through Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs)

However, the law requires that we represent ANY non-exempt worker involved in any labor dispute with the company our union local has a CBA with, should said worker choose that option. The non-union worker would have to approach us with their request for representation.

I hope I've answered your question.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

I'm not buying this. It's a load of crap. When a child is allowed to work for a "friend" they usually do it under the table. We aren't going to screw the kids over that early though. :D

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

If it's illegal now, and it's done under the table anyway, does that mean millions of american schoolchildren are being abused by being given the choice to earn money?

What if the law said black people could not earn a living? Age discrimination is okay?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

Most kids that do work for their parents friends or, even in their parents business are literally dealing with the parent. The parent may have them do some chores to earn money but the parent can and does can look at a report card and determine the length of hours and the times available for the kid to work.

As it stands now, this is the age group that if they work at fast food place will wind up working longer hours on shifts because some little manager needs a body.

Get back to me on age discrimination when you can change the ability to send a kid to die but not to buy a drink.

You aren't going to exploit children.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I would hope that your state has some child labor laws related to age, hours they can work if in school, minimum wage, etc. I don't think that too many employers in this area, would take a chance on violating any of those laws, at least regarding school age children.

The working relationship between parents and children is a totally different thing, even though the law applys equally, there are things involved that do not come under the law.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

It depends on where they work. Having the laws in place and having them enforced is another thing all together. Many of these people just want a body to come in and pull the shift. They have zero interest in the kids life at all.

Of course the relationship between parents and children is different in employment. However, parents (and friends of parents) have a vested interest in the kids and want them to be successful. These are the people that are going to step up and try to achieve balance.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

THEY ARE the ones that should be responsible for doing so. In most circumstances, I don't think it is entirely a matter of both the parent and the child being "willing" as some have posted.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

If the child and their parents are willing, there is no exploitation. As people have said, going to school is work. Is compulsory education exploitation? Should children be able to work as actors and models?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

They are limited as actors and models as well. They make a hell of a lot more money there than some minimum wage job.

No, we are not returning to the age of exploitation of children.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

A labor agreement between two parties is no different than any other mutual contract. Would you say someone in a homosexual relationship is being "exploited"? Of course not, because they aren't. As a liberal, I get angry when people calling themselves liberals seem to forget what the word means, to be free of others making personal choices for you. If two people in an agreement are happy with the arrangement, no one is being exploited.

You have referred to "exploiting children" twice in a row now. It is as if you are attempting to reinforce your own argument and convince yourself you are correct.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

there are not enough jobs for adults and you want to add another 50 million workers? so instead of a person who has to pay bills having a job,, a kid who has no bills has a job? i dont think so.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

First of all, I'm not adding them. I'm letting them decide to take them if they wish.

Actually, there are plenty of lower-end jobs. It is very easy to get unskilled jobs, like these kids would take. The unemployment issue is with skilled adults not wanting to take the lower paying jobs and sell their house because they can't make the payments. So instead most of them go on unemployment and leech off the people who do work.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

you are expanding the workforce non the less. and you thnk unemployment pays more than low end jobs? besides the fact it only last a year or so.. then what do you think those skilled people are doing? because a mortgage last 30 years.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Unemployment benefits have been increased to 99 weeks.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

yeah thats less than 2 yrs and then what? do you expect the 500k jobs to reappear ??

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

No, I don't expect them to reappear, unless the government makes it easier to hire people. I actually run a small business, and the biggest thing preventing me from being able to hire several people tomorrow is the paperwork I'd have to fill out and the fact that I'd have to pay them above going rate for labor due to the minimum wage.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

why not pay them cash? no paper work as for 'going rate' you could make a hash that out with the individual

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

The fact that someone else is breaking the law is not an excuse to break it. It sounds like we are in agreement, so why not just agree that the law needs to be repealed? Not sure I'm getting this.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

You realize you are advocating that I break the law? I should be able to freely make labor agreements with my employees, but it is illegal.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

if the wall street bankers can 'circumvent' the law why not go for it. are you a corporation? LLC if not i dont think it is against the law.. if it is.. all those people hiring baby sitters are in for a shock!

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

youre a classic liberal, in other words, a far-out libertarian, you loon.

[-] -2 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Hi! My name is BooTock! I like it when other people tell me what to do with my body! Baa-aah! Outlaw homosexuality! More authoritarianism! Yaay!

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

compulsory education is essential for a civil society. it's the opposite of exploitation. And yes, even if kids "consent" it may well be exploitative. What age kids you talking about?

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

If a 17 year old does not want to be kidnapped every morning and forced to go to school, and his parents don't want him to either, I guess the people really being exploited are the people being forced to pay for it. Education is about will to learn, and the child in this scenario is not going to learn anything even if he's forced to go to school. Did you know, depending on the locality, the government spends up to $75,000 per year per student on education? Of course you didn't. Tell me you couldn't get a nice private education for that.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

What are you talking about? Where are 17 year olds subject to compulsory education?

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

It's actually fewer than 19, due to exceptions for work, parental consent and obtaining an early h.s. degree. But if your point is that the working age should be lowered in those states from 18 to 17, I'm not sure I'd take issue.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

Could you provide some evidence for your assertion that some local governments spend up to $75,000 per year per child for education. Just curious where you get that from.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Point taken. I was told it can be as high as $75,000 in New Jersey, which was said to be the highest. New York is actually the highest at a hair over $18,000, which still would be the cost of a nice private education. http://febp.newamerica.net/k12/rankings/ppexpend

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

Thank you. Not $75,000. That number is way, way off.

The average per capita cost for education in the Northeast is $14,064, $9,189 in the Midwest, $8,910 in the South and $9,669 in the West.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Still, the average private school tuition in the US is $8,549 per year '07-'08. No one can say you'd get the same level of education there...

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

I wouldn't assume that private means better. You need to pay a lot of money for a private school to measure up to a good public school. The resources are simply not there in a lot of private, especially parochial schools. Now, if you live in a low income, inner city area, most likely, any private school will be better.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

That's a vast generalization. Plenty (or most) private and parochial schools measure up to and exceed the average public school. (You've stacked the deck by limiting your comparison to "good" public schools.) E.g., Catholic schools routinely outperform public schools notwithstanding far less resources and not "a lot of money" need be paid for the honor of attending.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

No, I didn't stack the deck. I said if you live in a low income, inner city area any private school would be better.

If you live in a good public school district my advice would be to go to the public school. If you live in a so-so district look closely at the schools both public and private, sometimes even then public school is better.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

Anti-Catholic schools and anti-homeschooling?? You've got to be a public school teacher. No one else could be that knee-jerk irrational.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

No. I'm not a teacher.

[-] -1 points by Cephalus (146) 12 years ago

This discussion gave me an idea for some lyrics.

Home Schooled

Home schooled by a catholic priest
I never fear the wrath of the beast
Home schooled by a single white nun
Learning one on one is so much fun

(I'll write the rest later on today)

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

@beautifulworld, thanks for acknowledging your reflexive bias towards public schools and against Catholic schools. Public education did help make this country great. And Catholic schools also helped make this country great. May you educate yourself on the profound contributions that Catholic schools have made and continue to make in the US before you make any more generalizations. And nope, I'm not a teacher.

P.S. Homeschooling may also be an excellent choice, even in a "good" public school district.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

Oh. No. Don't go there. Don't freaking home school your kid unless you're qualified to teach, please.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

Please. How do you presume to advise anyone to go to the public school in their district? Only if you have a pronounced bias in favor of public schools, of course. (Are you perchance a public school teacher?)

My advice: consider your local public, private and parochial schools, their respective curricula, your children's needs, your family's values, your resources, and then make the best decision for your family. Even in a "good" public school district, Catholic or private schools are the right choice.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

In the end, I'll agree with you BonTon that educating children is up to the parents and is very very personal and specific to each child. I am a firm believer in the public school system. It is what made this country great. I don't agree that Catholic or private schools are the right choice. I'd always go public, personally. And, nope, I'm not a teacher. You?

[-] -1 points by trailerParkTim (-13) 12 years ago

I'm not buying this. It's a load of crap.////////////////////////////////////Yes you are a load of crap

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

How charming! You have reinvented yourself as the same piece of shit that you were before. Again.

You are such a very small pathetic dick.


[-] 0 points by owsleader2038 (-10) 12 years ago

Am I the ONLY person here opposed to

Police Unions Prison Unions Teacher Unions???

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago


[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

No you are definitely not alone in looking for justice for the American worker.


[-] 0 points by Kite (79) 12 years ago

As the spouse of a dues paying union member.....who hasn't had Union work in 5+ years but must still pay dues...I have a different view of just how useful they are. So I'll refrain from commenting on that point.

As to point #2, it has NEVER been easier to opt out of public education than it is today. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but a phenomenon known as Homeschooling has exploded in popularity over the past 20 years. Many school districts put quite a great deal of effort into ensuring they don't have any students enrolled who aren't residing with their legal guardians within the district. They employ someone who is functionally the opposite of a truant officer. Kids can work. If your children are so inclined, have them put the first few thousand of their earnings into an IRA.

There are provisions for opting out of Social Security. Clergy, Police & Fireman, Federal employees and members of certain Religious sects do not pay into Social Security and each has other provisions.

I must take specific issue with your analysis of the average retiree's net worth and their need for Social Security. My Mother's ONLY income is SS and she nets around $15,000 per year. Her net worth is higher than the average you list and is tied up in the value of her home. Over her lifetime, she has paid income tax, sales tax and property tax. She continues to pay property tax of around 1/3 of her income. Exactly what is she taking from the paychecks of poor?

Don't get me wrong, I think there could be some means test for Social Security. But to come at this with an assumption based on average net worth as the deciding factor is a bit misguided. It isn't so easy to turn a home into food.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I agree with you on union dues, the rights of workers include not paying union dues if they wish not, as well as the option to join a union or not. Let them work it out on their terms, and I agree that your spouse shouldn't have to pay union dues.

As far as your mother goes, I have no idea how long she has been retired, or how long she worked, etc so I have no way of doing the math on her situation in particular so I will be broad. If she has taken more from social security than she has paid during her working life, plus interest, it is coming out of the paychecks of the poor. Reverse mortgages are a common way of turning solid assets into income. I am not saying your mother is stealing from the poor, I am saying it can't be fair for her or any other person to receive three times what they paid into a system.

[-] 0 points by occupypuppies (71) 12 years ago

http://deoxy.org/endwork.htm I am not for worker's rights because I don't ever want to work. I just want to play. Just saying.

[-] 0 points by Ninetyninenot (-57) 12 years ago

States with the most rigorous "protections" of older workers have the highest older worker unemployment. When government gets involved, you increase risk for employers. If older workers become super glue and present special risks, it's easier some times simply not to hire them in the first place.

If "rich" people can't claim the social security benefits that they've paid for and instead the money goes to you, doesn't that make social security YOUR welfare? Just sayin'.

[-] 0 points by GypsyKing (8708) 12 years ago

Stealth troll.


[-] 0 points by Brandon37 (372) 12 years ago

You mean public and govt workers.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

After reading this, I have come to the conclusion that you are one of the few that aren't fighting for workers rights.

Unless, of course you think the "corporate person" is a worker.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 12 years ago

Who was it that said "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one?"

[-] 2 points by francismjenkins (3713) 12 years ago

Exactly ... I mean, we can raise the minimum wage or whatever (and that's all well and good), but it still won't change the fact that most Americans are quasi-serfs (the only difference is they're rented instead of owned). American workers have very little say or power over 1/3 of their lives (and individual liberty without any say in one's economic affairs, is only half liberty).

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

Me too, shooz. Bizarre.

[-] 1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

See below.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

You want children to work. You don't want social security. I just think it would be better to focus on things like the Fair Labor Standards Act. Fair Pay. Overtime abuse. Temporary vs. Permanent employees. Benefits. Job Security (Employment at will laws). Things like that.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Is there anyone here that thinks that we already have all the controls that we as humans can handle. I have two employees and the laws, regulations, rules, taxes, reports, and everything associated with all of this is pushing me more and more to simply fire two people and do it all myself.

Our system today is totally over-regulated. FLSA was a good and necessary step at one point in time - anything that abuses that law is not considered illegal - deal with that.

It has also taken the employee benefit package from abouit 20% of base salary up to 50%. My business is borderline paying $37,500 to get $25,000 worth of work done. Maybe that explains some of the problems we see today with temp vspermanent employees, benefits, job security etc.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

I hear what you are saying and I think small businesses are a different animal for sure. But, big corporations are taking advantage of labor laws hiring "temps" for years, requiring unpaid overtime of exempt employees, firing people randomly, etc. I think employee benefits are out of control due to healthcare costs and underfunded pensions that are becoming problems.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

I predict that "underfunded pensions" will be the economic issue that will put all of us back into our places.

When you and I have to decide whether or not that 85 year old woman will continue to receive her pension in 2015 and thereafter, or not, we will find out just what we all really are willing to "stand by". It will be a decision of whether we pay for the underfunding throught drastically increased taxes or if we want to throw grandma off the train.

This issue, above all others, will probably be the greatest one this country will ever face.. At that point in time, we will all be scrambling for survival, along with grandma.

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 12 years ago

Underfunded pensions are a scam. Borrowing money from a pension fund is a scam. Private and Public Business that engage in either practice should be looking to receive legal charges against them. A pension fund should be fully funded from day 1 and the pension fund assets should be untouchable. Just like the Government should never have been allowed to "borrow" Social Security funds.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

I think you may be right about that. And, you made me laugh!

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

There has to be a time when we all take a break to "laugh". If find that sifting through most of the posts on these forums is a very depressing adventure.

I am thinking about offering reduced counseling rates - it is a captive audience. Might team up with a doctor to offer meds too.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

LOL! Yes, too many nasty kooks on here. Make me laugh anytime you want....

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

See below again. You misread my post just like Shooz did, I said nothing about getting rid of SS, I said it is asinine to make minimum wage earners pay for it. I did not say children should work, I said they should be allowed to if they want. Do you think it should be illegal for there to be child actors and models? That is paid work instead of education.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23789) 12 years ago

Okay. Fair enough. There was some kind of system malfunction and I couldn't read the posts below or post on another thread.

[-] 0 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Check your last fact out. Do you know any child actor that is not involved in on-site education at the same time they are working.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

http://www.minorcon.org/outsidethelaw.html Work does not come at the expense of education. Just as child actors can get educated while they work, children learning vocational skills in any other trade could be educated while they work.

[-] -2 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

What about allowing all people the right to work, giving workers a 7% raise and letting them form unions is against worker's rights? Do they not have the right to do these things if they like? Sounds like you are the one who likes corporations. Please make an objection instead of just saying I'm for corporations, discourse is what makes this site great.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Sounds like Heritage Foundation pablum.

This is just another attempt at divide and conquer.

Kids should be getting a funded education, not working on Maggie's farm.

Taking away SS has been a goal of (R)epelicans since it was enacted.

[-] -2 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I said nothing about taking away social security, I merely said that minimum wage workers should not be the ones paying for it. See what happened there? You misread my post. I thought of these things myself, I am not parroting them from anyone else, and CERTAINLY not anyone from the right. These are things that all liberals like myself should support, there is no reason why not. I grew up on a sustainable community farm, just as I know several people who grew up on a commune near where I live and they have fine lives. It is not for you to decide, and I got a great education and learned a good work ethic and do quite well now in my older years. What gives you the right to decide that for me?

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I'm sorry, I would like to think you're sincere, but the language you used,is pure Heritage style propaganda terminology.

Put it in less confrontational terms, then maybe we could have a discussion.

Until then, it's just twisted spin.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

shooz, you specialize in categorizing others' comments ("Rush," Heritage, etc.) Still waiting to see you "have a discussion". Mostly your comments are a bore.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Join date 1-16.

Baby boy.

I've been here for months.

I didn't come here to troll.

But I have gotten tired of the same old same old from (R)epelican trolls.

I've even caught them quoting directly from CATO.

This one is pretty close to that.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

Join date 1-16. And it took me just a day or two to get bored with your cant. shooz means snooze.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago


And I'm sure you think your comments are poignant and informed.

They're not.

[-] -2 points by skylar (-441) 12 years ago

how long you've been on this website is a positive qualification,..........for what?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Only a rookie could ask such a silly question.

Experience, does count. Is BonTon your other name?

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 12 years ago

Experience at what? Typing?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

That moron thing I like to do, called thinking.

That's what the teabaggers blamed on me with that that sign.

Except, they didn't do that thinking part and called me a moran.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 12 years ago

"that that sign"? You need more typing/thinking experience.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Awwww, couldn't understand it?

Sorry, but I'm in and out of here all day, I run a busy household, and typing isn't my best thing.

Experience still counts, and haven't really said much.

[-] -1 points by skylar (-441) 12 years ago

experience pertaining to what?

[-] -2 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I am not quoting a soul.

If you'd drop your paranoia and actually join the discourse, maybe you'd do something productive instead of claiming everyone you disagree with is a "troll". I won't hold my breath...

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago


1.) Yes Allow ALL workers to form unions, encourage them even. No. It's not impossible to create a new union.

2.) Child labors laws are in place for a reason. Just because you don't mind other countries doing it for WallyWorld, don't force it on our children.

3.) This really has been the (R)epelican line for so many years, I quit keeping track.

Strengthen SS, do nothing to weaken it, and this proposal will weaken it. Just remove the cap on FICA and be done with it.

If you come back with stuff from CATO, I'm done with you as a serious poster.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

This proposal will weaken SS? Says who, all I said is that the government should seek other sources to fund SS than from the working class.... Money in, money out. Workers shouldn't be the ones paying for it.

Secondly, I wouldn't dream of forcing labor on any child, or adult for that matter. See what you did there? You're using spin, or something called "propaganda". You're attempting to misrepresent my points in order to make them sound like something I'm not proposing.

Show me where anything I've said has come from CATO or any other organization. What's that? I didn't? Sorry buddy! Try harder next time! lol

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

SS opt out has been part of the CATO agenda for some time now. Just because you offer an arbitrary 7% raise doesn't make it not so.

You offer no way to off set that opt out.

You ask for repeal of child labor laws, under the guise of it being discrimination.

A perfect example of CATO style spin.

As I said, child labors laws are in place for very good reasons.

Just because you wouldn't dream of forcing labor on a child, doesn't mean someone else wouldn't have any problem with it at all.

WalMart clearly endorses it in other parts of the world.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

No, I 100% support a ban on forced child labor. Problem?

Tax the rich to make up the SS gap for all I care, raise corporate taxes, cut the 100,000,000,000 in waste fraud and abuse from medicare and medicaid. Whatever offsets it, it shouldn't come from workers.

How do we disagree?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

We highly disagree in the intent of the wording of the OP.

Remove all inflammatory language and see what you come up with.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

It doesn't matter what the intent is, do you support the proposals without assuming the OP is a ploy to enslave children, make it legal to form unions and destroy social security?

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

As written, no.

Words are important.

Do the reword and let's talk.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

Hey, shooz - have you encountered anyone (including yourself) on these forums that is not promoting their own "twisted spin".

You are aware of the pot and the kettle, right??

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

I don't twist a damn thing.

I don't need the likes of Heritage to tell me how to feel, nor interpret what I see every day.

In fact, I studied propaganda, to learn how it's used.

The OP is rife with it.

[-] -1 points by ronjj (-241) 12 years ago

You just "twisted".

You make the assumption that Heritage even knows who you are and if they do that they give a damn.

Looks like you show read a little more about propaganda and less about Heritage. You fell for it.......

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

If you give them a 7% raise, then they shouldn't be entitled to SS payments when they are of age. How can you get SS benefits if you don't pay into it?

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Yes, they should be able to opt out and not receive benefits later on. Actually, the total contribution is 7% from the employer as well, so the worker has the right to bargain for that amount as well or receive a half-sized check when they retire.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

I could support people being able to opt out of the SS system. I know I could get a better return on that 7% on my own than what I would get through the current system

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Exactly, I am a liberal and I see nothing wrong with it. I have no idea why some of our friends on the left are drunk on the idea of central authority being able to take your money for the better good. If you say corporations shouldn't be able to hold people's futures, you hear cheering. If you say people shouldn't be slaves to the government, they boo.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 12 years ago

Unfortunately I think the obstacle may be that there are far too many people in this country with very low financial IQ and giving them that 7% would probably do nothing to help them in the long term.

I was just reading an article the other day about a study that found 60% of Americans could not identify the major variables that affect one's credit score. It is a fairly simple thing that could literally save someone tens of thousands of dollars over a lifetime and people are clueless about it.

[-] -2 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I agree. It is their right to be clueless, no person besides you knows what is right for you. I say "right" instead of "most beneficial", because even poor decisions are right because they are being made by the person they affect the most.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

The heading/title for this post is misleading. THIS IS AN ANTI-WORKER POST!!

Workers rights are really the center of what Occupy Wall Street is all about. The rape and pillage of the 99% by the 1%. If the 99% were gainfully employed with good union jobs, there would be no reason for this protest movement.

All jobs should be union jobs to provide collective bargaining, all employers are organized in one way or another for their advantage, workers need a level playing field.

There are always exceptions, but generally minimum wage should be a livable wage, adjusted for the cost of living.

Tax caps on high incomes should all be removed, no special privileges to the privileged.

SS and other entitlements/insurance should be means tested. Millionaires should not be collecting unemployment checks when they are between corner offices.

Taxes should be raised way up on wealth without loopholes, to Eisenhower era levels would be nice. Economic Patriotism.

Offshoring manufacturing and jobs should be levied mercilessly. Economic Patriotism.

"The elderly are worth $250 grand" and the rest of this post is complete anti-worker anti-99% BS!!!

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

"All jobs should be union jobs to provide collective bargaining, all employers are organized in one way or another for their advantage, workers need a level playing field."

So, you are for taking away a worker's right to chose whether or not to join a union? I guess you are "Pro-Life" also?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

Go soak your tiny head.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

Whoa. Sounds like rational debate to me. I'm serious here, don't workers have that right of choice?

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

People have the right to work for as little as they want. It's better for the society we are living in for people to make more money, though. And we are trying to make things better all the time wherever we can. Especially in the dismal condition of American workers' rights. Only Cons and their employer greed-addled few in the 1% want to take away anyone's rights. The framing of your question, if truly serious, is very skewed. Why shouldn't workers have a little more of an equal playing field with employers? People have been stripped of their rights to drive without safety belts and bags too, right?? Suicide is against the law, but rarely enforced.

I'm against war, poverty, exploitation and slavery, so yes, I'm pro-life. I'm also for contraceptives and abortion if they don't work. And I am definitely for catholic or any other religious provider having to obey the law of the land and not molest little boys and to provide all legal medications, including pregnancy control pills. R we clear now??

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

People do have the natural right to negotiate with their employers for wage rates. This right includes joining and forming unions. I do not want to take that away. I just don't want to make it mandatory, either. No, we are not clear why this is a good thing.

You are essentially saying that what is good for society as a whole trumps the rights of an individual. This is dangerous because what is good for society is controlled by the majority of people, who will gladly take away the rights of a minority of people if they think it is good in general. See also: interracial marriage, slavery, gay marriage, banning homosexuality.

People also are stripped of their right to work for as little as they want by minimum wage laws.

[-] -2 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

There are people and corporations who prey on the weak and defenseless in our society, so our government strives to protect them.

You can bemoan the tyranny of the traffic light that forces you (the individual) to stop while society passes safely in front of you, but take your myopic whining somewhere else.

[-] 2 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

I wish I could be as naive as you. I pity weak minded people like you who think there is altruism in government or corporations. "Yes! They are here to protect us! They don't care about their pockets being lined! They want to protect me It feels so good to have someone watching out for me!" I am all for what is good for society. But it does not trump the rights of an individual, depending on what the rights are. Society could save seven lives every time they selected one random person off of the street and harvested their organs. Health costs would plummet because sick people would be off of the hospital burden. Why would this be a bad thing? It would help a majority of people.

Vafgrnq bs ratntvat va engvbany qrongr, naq rkcynvavat gur zrevgf bs zl fpranevb bs betna uneirfgvat va n engvbany jnl, lbh jvyy abj fnl fbzrguvat nybat gur yvarf bs "Gung'f evqvphybhf, ab bar jnagf gb uneirfg gur betnaf bs enaqbz crbcyr." Gunaxf sbe cynlvat.

I will give you the decryption key to the above prediction after your next reply.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

Yeah, I didn't think you'd be able to respond to reason.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

Tax caps on high incomes should all be removed, no special privileges to the privileged.

this flip flops around a little and needs clarification

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

Try Google?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

Tax caps on high incomes suggest peoples income should be taxed as it rises


Tax caps on high income suggests after a certain income a worker is no longer required to pay tax on further income

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

Seriously? Did your space ship have a flat or something?

I can't explain tax code to you, look it up.

[-] 0 points by Meethook (72) 12 years ago

Still feeding know trolls while calling supporters trolls? No, you aren't making decisions based on your social politics at all.... lol. No difference at all between the way you decide who is a troll and who isn't, than the decision making of those you complain about in the 1%. Yet somehow you think you have a place in fixing things. Absolutely amazing.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

I am pointing out a sentence to clarify to help out

get over it


[-] 0 points by Meethook (72) 12 years ago

Yeah i don't care dude. It's a free country. Good on ya. Hope you learn to make nice with all the trolls.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

Computers have replaced a good number of office jobs.

It is not necessary for the people to work more than 20 hours a week

to move food and resources to people and keep the factories producing.

still, the workers should be paid a living wage for the 20 hours

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

I suppose this might be a topic of consideration, but first we must get all our jobs back and improve other pay, tax, etc. conditions.

But this post is ANTI-99%!!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

we can create jobs by working fewer hours for greater pay

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

Before we reinvent the wheel, let's get this one out of the ditch, people are suffering now.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 12 years ago

I'm guessing that those over sea jobs ain't coming back despite trade embargoes

the job market hasn't grown to match the population

in fact, automation and computers have made even less jobs available

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 12 years ago

Yes, a real mess has been created.


[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Thanks for making clearer that this is a libe(R)tarian based thread.

You also demonstrated your inability to remove propaganda from your thinking process, as well as your typing.

Constantly putting the cart before the horse.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

No problem. Thanks for demonstrating your ability to remove thought from your thinking process, as well as your typing.

Also thank you for putting your statist agenda before the rights of the people.

[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

You have proven to be very much against workers rights.

Merely pushing an agenda.

A rather ugly one at that.

I stand by my first post in this dubious thread.

I accept your shallow accusations, because they are shallow.

Will you accept my accusations of you because they are deep?

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I will accept your accusation of me, because they are deep pile of-Whoa! Thought aborted!

Nah, I'll just start calling names at people I disagree with. It seems to be the way things go around here.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

There wasn't an ounce of thought in what you posted.

Not an ounce.

It's purely agenda driven.

Why not just be honest and post your actual agenda?

Why insist on keeping the devils you put in your statements?

Why couldn't you really clean up the wording?

I know why.

You are not honest.


[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

So do trailer park owners.

They just suck harder.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I find it amusing that you claim my posts don't contain any thought, then you attack people based on their living conditions and call people names, rather than engage in debate and discussion as I do. The reason you want me to condense my complex thoughts into something you can understand, is because if I don't explain myself it is much easier for the mob rule on this site to shout down anything they disagree with. Nothing you have posted in this thread even resembles debate or discussion, mostly just name calling and saying "that's ridiculous". It's much easier than coming up with thought patterns to combat things you disagree with, so you can go drink more diet Pepsi and toke on your bong.

Have an awesome day!

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

warbles, did you lose your marbles?

  1. false. theres no law that requires an outside union to represent anyone

  2. what times are you talking about, medieval? child labor laws are good, but Newt's got some good ideas re modifying.

  3. should we also cut off Soc. Sec. for those recieving it? If not, where's the $ coming from?

[-] -2 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Why are child labor laws good? I worked when I was young, and I wanted to. People should not be deciding what is "Good" for other people. If I want to do something bad for myself, let me do it, it is my right. Do I need to remind you that promiscuity is a bad idea? It is still a right.

I didn't say we should cut off social security, I said the money for it shouldn't come from the working class. The average retiree has a net worth of $250,000. Needy retirees exist of course, but the average one does not need to be leeching off the working class.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

No, you don't have a right to put children to work without some restrictions imposed by govt.

And, sorry to be the one to break it to you... you don't have a right to promiscuity.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Um, what? In what way is promiscuity not a right? You can't just claim something absurd without saying whatever shred of reason you have behind it.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

haha, that's a good one, warbles. You, not I, made the claim that 'promiscuity is a right' without a shred of reason behind it.

Where exactly do you find your 'right to promiscuity'? In the US Constitution? the Magna Carta? Do tell... I must have been out that day in civics class.

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

the right to pursue happiness thats where

[-] 1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

It is an inherent right because both parties agree during any mutual sexual interaction and there are no negative externalities affecting any third party. It sounds like you skipped all of civics class, or you'd know that rights unspecified are automatic, not granted by law.

[-] -2 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

An inherent right? What's that mean -- it's God given?

So NYC unlawfully shutdown the bathhouses in the '80s in the midst of the AIDS epidemic because it violated the "right to promiscuity"?

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Do you really think the only right we have are ones granted explicitly by legal documents? Doesn't "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" cover anything you can think of that does not negatively affect anyone else?

Or maybe you just think the rich elites that control the government should keep forcing us to do what is "good for us".

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

OK, so you're contending that each of us has a God-given right to unlimited promiscuous sexual activity. Hmm. Very novel theory, warbles. So NYC was wrong in my example in your view.

[-] 1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Actually, it's not a novel theory. Dates back many years... How many sexual partners should a person be allowed before it is time for the government to step in?

And, more importantly, who's rights are they violating?

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

When should the govt step in? For starters:

  1. when there's a public heath risk
  2. when sex is transacted for money
  3. when a child are involved, or any other time sex involves a person less than fully competent to consent
  4. when animals are involved

Should I go on? Or does your doctrinaire libertarianism not allow for these common expressions of civil society?

[-] 0 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

what does any of that have to do with promiscuity? you do understand that promiscuity means having sex with many different partners? end of definition

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

And your point is...?

But thanks for the reminder. Another basis on which the gov't can regulate sexual activity with multiple partners is, of course, as to polygamy. (Note to M. Romney)

So, you see, there is no "right to promiscuity"

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 12 years ago

promiscuity by definition has nothing to do with marriage. and there is no law that say a guy cant marry one and just pretend marry 15 others if he can talk them into it ,, so no , gov.cant regulate

[-] 2 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

The below statement may be the first one I have ever heard that includes the phrase "You don't have the right" and the insult "Gestapo" in the same breath.

[-] 1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

promiscuous - characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.

Yes, such conduct is subject to regulation by the state under the circumstances I've listed, as well probably as others. You don't have a "right to promiscuity", Gestapo

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

No, I agree with you completely. You only think in your mind that I disagree, if two people engaging in sexual activity are affecting anyone else unfairly, the government has not the right but the duty to step in. Animals and children included have not the ability to give consent. I'm with you so far, please do go on.

[-] 2 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

you're mistake is in casting everything in terms of rights. There is no 'right to promiscuity.' You may just as well as suggest a right to drive 100 miles an hour. There's no such thing. Libertarians, in overemphasizing individual rights, ignore countervailing communitarian responsibilities.

[-] 1 points by craigdangit (326) 12 years ago

What does "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" mean to you?

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

You know what? You're right, ButtTock. All libertarians want is a police state.

LOL this is fun to watch

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

Glad you've recognized the errors of your ways. (Havent seen you argue your false 1st premise much. Seems you've wisely abandoned that one, too). I accept your unconditional surrender!

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

You used the incorrect form of "your" in the last post.

Actually, you can go 100mph in the instance you described, because there is no one there to catch you and stop you. Also, the limitations described in such a scenario go beyond endangering other people. first of all, you are on public property which is rightly collectively owned. If you were to wreck, your car would take up space in the road and prevent other people from getting by the next morning. Also, if you die in the wreck, you won't be able to remove the car yourself and will essentially be forcing others to remove the car for you.

Rights are not subject to a majority vote. Sounds like you are unconvinced since you keep failing at disproving it...

[-] 0 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

"Rights are not subject to a majority vote"

that's quite true, which is why we need to be very careful about what we call "rights." Because if everything is a "right" (even driving 100 mph!), then nothing is subject to majority vote. That's the problem with libertarians, wobbles. When you get right down to it, what they all want is a police state: cops and soldiers to protect private property, and nothing more from the state.

"You used the incorrect form of "your" in the last post."

Isn't that my right?

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

I do not support raising the speed limit to 100 miles per hour as this endangers specific other people.

Classic straw man argument....

You see, I use something called principal when deciding if a specific regulation is just. If something occurs between consenting adults and does not unfairly affect any third person, it is a right. See how that settles arguments? If I were to listen to the standard claptrap surrounding any proposed legislation over stupid emotional, reactionary, "He said/they said" type arguments, we could argue all day and neither come to any sort of conclusion nor be able to, because each side is basing their justification of a law on something unprovable. The arguments you are employing are the same types of arguments used by people on the right to justify all sorts of unfair laws. They say the corporate bailouts are necessary "for the common good". They say keeping gay marriage illegal is necessary "for the common good". They say it is permissible to give your property to a corporation for development because it is necessary "for the common good". Can you prove or disprove that something is for the common good? Of course not.

Can you prove or disprove that someone's rights are being violated in a given scenario? Yes.

A right is universal, and not to be decided by a majority vote. If they were, interracial marriage would never be a right because the majority would not approve of it. Muslims would not have the right to attend a mosque because the majority would have to be consulted first. Any random action you could dream up is naturally a right, unless it can be proven to negatively affect someone else. Do you have a right to walk through your neighborhood? Sure, and you don't have to consult any authority. Do you have the right to protest? Ditto. Do you have the right to hit me in the face? Not unless I say you can, because my right not to be hit in the face trumps your right.

Ever heard of freedom of expression? It covers all those things.

[-] -1 points by BonTon (57) 12 years ago

"If something occurs between consenting adults and does not unfairly affect any third person, it is a right."

No it isn't, it's just you're method of argument: label everything under the sun a "right" and then claim the moral high ground when someone suggests restricting it. Your sophistry is proven by your statement, "I do not support raising the speed limit to 100 miles per hour as this endangers specific other people." What specific other people? There are no "specific other people" on a deserted 8-lane freeway at 3:00 a.m. and yet I still can't go 100 mph. Why is that? Answer: Because we as a society have decided that there are various risks associated with such behavior so we restrict it and don't leave it to the individual to decide when it's safe to go 100 mph. We could change that law if we wish, but "rights" have nothing to do with it. So your starting point is all wrong.

"See how that settles arguments?"

Nope, but I can see how you've convinced yourself!

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Did you re work the wording for these three requests yet?

I'm interested in what you come up with.

Just remember the K.I.S.S. doctrine.

Words are very important when describing proposed law.

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Keep it simple indeed... did you know Dodd-Frank is 2300 pages?

Thanks for the remind, I do need to work on it...

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

Good thing your not a lawyer.

They use words, to hide the devils in the detail.

Or are you?

[-] 0 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago


[-] -1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

That explains your difficulty in removing the devils in your wording.

[-] -1 points by warbles (164) 12 years ago

Elaborate...? Please don't tell me you can't understand what I wrote. I never said I had difficulty, I just didn't do it for a while.

[-] -2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 12 years ago

You've forgotten our conversation already?

I'm just asking you to simplify your 3 points.

To help us find agreement.