Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Standing with unions is not a smart thing.

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 23, 2011, 4:07 p.m. EST by mandodod (144)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I notice you folks are letting big unions stand with you at rallys. This is a bad move. From what I have read here the number one thing you want to stop is Millionaires or corporations giving to the political system. Unions take dues from the workers and part of that money goes to the DNC. What is the difference? Millions of dollars to to the DNC over a years time. You will be called out on this at a later date. If you keep on going the way you are, it will just make you look like a hypocrite type of group. You cannot have it both ways.



Read the Rules
[-] 8 points by GirlFriday (17435) 12 years ago

I don't get what the anti-union stuff is. I hear about this from those who hope to destroy collective bargaining power.

[-] 11 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

I get it. I just don't support it.

Being part of a union requires a willingness to identify with the workforce and see things from others' perspectives and not just your own. It requires at least some tendency to shrug off that rugged individualism that is hammered into us by the powers that be, a tendency to fight for someone else while at the same time allowing others to fight for you.

Not being part of a union is exactly what the 1% want, so that they can allow the employers to easily run roughshod over the workers.

Rugged individualism, in its disguise of patriotic freedom, has a hidden dark side: It actually paves the way for dominance and authoritarianism, as power and wealth becomes more concentrated amidst competition and greed. The end result is a diminishing of trust, the establishment of paranoid fanaticism, and a progressive breakdown of social equity.

[-] 8 points by groovyjoker (39) 12 years ago

I agree. And as a union member, unless one person in this forum can link a specific union to a "kickback" I suggest this discussion ends. Frankly, I doubt many of you non-union members understand what unions are about (collective bargaining, worker's rights). Nor do I think you understand how different things would be without the unions. The Managers would be in complete control. Get it? We would have no say. Get it? No bargaining chips. Get it? That is what the 1% wants. Get it? We will see who argues pro-union and anti-union with the responses to this post. Pro-union = Pro-99% and anti-union = anti-99%. Get it?

[-] 3 points by MitchK (305) 12 years ago

careful what you say groovy...I am sure if you look at the news over the past for years you might just see a s**t load of corrupt union officials. I do not know where you live but its not in the U.S.The EX president of the countrys largest labor council,by the way he was also a politician(wow what a conflict of interest),was sentenced to 10 years,by the way,that was just the stuff they got him for not the stuff he did in and for life/work. As I said they are extortionist. Give what we want or you get nothing done. Its WAY PAST fairness with these unions,its greed. And guess what if I do not like what my boss pays me I as an american citizen have the right to leave and so does anyone else collectively or individually should they/I feel reason to.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

Two must-read posts!

[-] -1 points by Libertarianliving (149) 12 years ago

"""""The Managers would be in complete control. Get it?"""""

Too bad it isn't that way. It should be. That is why they are "managers", to "call the shots" that will make a business the most profitable it can be. But with the support of our socialist government, unions get in the way of a company or business being successful, "inflating" the value of a common laborer. If an employer doesn't offer what one THINKS is "enough" compensation for his or her time, that individual has the right not to work there.

[-] 1 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 12 years ago

I am pro-union, but I still think it is a mistake to align with the unions in this movement. In order to grow this movement, it would be far more effective for people to show up as individuals, not as organizations, (even though they may also belong to other groups.) Can you try to see that from my perspective?

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

I can agree with that, but I don't think it serves this movement good if we fail to acknowledge the good things unions have done. We can also acknowledge the bad things, which are mostly because of union bosses. Unions operate in a similar fashion to our electoral system in terms of voting and what not. If our electoral system is corrupted from money, then it should not be a surprise that unions will be.

Though there are definitely cases in which union members are dissatisfied with the unions and might easily be attracted to anti-union propaganda, but most of this propaganda is heavily pushed by those with ties to the 1%.

That is not to say that unions don't cater to corporate interests, either. They do, and that's a problem that also does not help.

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

That was very well said.

[-] 2 points by MitchK (305) 12 years ago

Girl sorry but those unions at one point in americas industrial history were important,but,like any other business it got to big for its britches...My father was a union man for over 40 years,technically though retired still a union member,of one of the largest and most powerful unions...when I was a kid he use to make,now I am 42 mind you, he use to make 27 an hour to CHANGE A LIGHT BULB in a traffic light. Union President from SEIU,makes over 300k a year(hmmm part of the 1% this "movement" is against) and unfortunetly look at how corrupt alot of,over the years these union officials are. Now they stand with the "common man" its a business like any other..alot of unions got what they want through violence,contratcs through threats and corruption of the same politics that are corrupted by the so called corporate "greed" Most of what these unions get for wages to work any one can do for half and than cost of thinsg would go down. Company might earn more but thats what a company does,someone opens a business to make money. Now I do agree with anything ebing unfair but these unions are just as unfair to america and our economy as any other corporation

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

I accept that there is corruption in unions but I'm glad I am in one. The mere fact of my union prevents my supervisors from making up extra work for us to do or from just asking us to work extra hours for free. My supervisors are all good people, nice, and they are not even trying to increase profits because it's non-profit. still, there is just a tendency to want or even NEED more work to be done. The union sets limits.

but they also collude to keep themselves in power. still. I'm glad i have it and the dues are rather cheap for all the protection it provides.

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

I don't find them to be "unfair" when they don't sell out. There were years that this went on in some industries. But, I encourage you to look at industries and look at teachers. Teachers have gone without raises and done without consistently. Yet, because people do not pay attention to where they are going then we wind up with situations like the following link which is, btw, happening all over the nation.


The teachers at charter schools make less, have a high turnover rate, and the test scores are dismal. But, the profit is tremendous. So, public education and the kids and the teachers are discarded in favor of money that is still being siphoned off of our tax dollars. All of this done in the name of "standardized tests" which most often cannot be compared from one state to the next and definitely not internationally. So, why does it continue? The testing companies make billions of dollars from tests and textbooks and they don't have to pay taxes. We have highly trained educators that have been prevented from educating children because they are forced to teach to the test. The teachers are prevented from having major discussions with the public themselves and every time someone is up for election education is used as a weapon.

Unions are good.

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

Where do you get this crap?

Lack of unions kill people all the time.

Unions are not just about wages, although you'd never know that listening to the propaganda.

I suggest you start working for that $0.25 an hour you think is such a good thing for America.

I have yet to meet anyone saying this shit, that will put their money where their mouth is.

After you do that for a while, come back here and tell us all about how it cured all the ills.

You should have paid better attention in English class. If your run on sentence is any indication of your level of understanding?

You lose.

[-] 0 points by MitchK (305) 12 years ago

Hello ummm I have worked for over 30 years...and I have also worked a union job...RIDICULOUS what they get paid and what they expect and demand..now I did say I belive in FAIRness and the unions at one point in history thats what they were about,,,,now,,,you have got to be joking they are extortionist...and companys(including the city,state and federal govt) are held hostage by them and are scared to question them. I mean really MOST and I will say MOST not ALL unions demand I can,have and will work for 25-50% less and actually do the work.Guess you do not look at things in this country 5 guys standing around a highway work site...one with a shovel three watching and one supervising...than they switch. A flag guy to wave a flag 28 an hour hell Ill do it for 15. A transit worker 22 an hour and guess what little do you know,I know for a fact,they only work for about 5 of those 8 hours they get paid for and what they do is not work.

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

I got you beat.

I've worked for 40+ years.

Where is this so called extortion? I never saw it.

The biggest extortion heist was pulled by Wallstreet. Yet you don't even mention it.

The real extortion comes form managements side of contracts. Their threats and distortions come along every contract year.

The flag guy is on work rotation schedule. So what's the problem? The laziest people I've ever seen were supervisors, and they don't actually do much of anything.

I don't hear you asking for them to take a 30% cut.

Unions are about so much more than simple wages.

You just keep repeating yourself, and running your sentences on.

Do you have something besides hyperbole?

[-] 2 points by 99time (92) 12 years ago

The open secrets list is for official donations to campaigns. You should be able to tell immediately that those numbers are very low. The bulk of money that goes into elections goes into "electioneering."
We all know from multiple reports that those who oppose unions and Social Security spend more than double on electioneering than those who do not blatantly oppose those things.

[-] 2 points by losthumanity (58) 12 years ago

And yet, if you add up all the entries on that list, here's how it plays out:

Total spent by those that donate more to Reps than to Dems: $1,157,861,479

Total spent by those that donate more to Dems than Reps: $1,137,106,302

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

it's interesting to note that everyone hates the Koch bros so much and they are 78th on the fascist list. the unions pretty much own the top 20

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

Why would you give money to a party that was out to destroy you?

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

It is not anti union . It it what you folks OWS are most against.....money going to politics. I read about it all the time here. You hate that. You want money from corporations out of politics. Unions giving millions is no different. It is still lobbying. No matter how you look at it.

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

Those monies go to help the 99%.

Why do you hate them?

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

They are giving to politics. That is what OWS hates. You cannot tell corporations not to do it and say it is ok for unions to do it.

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

It's still the way things are done.

Get the money out, and then we'll talk.

[-] -3 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

What the heck are you talking about? Union money in politics is no different than business money in politics. Both corrupt the system in exactly the same way. Because it is "...the way things are done" is the whole point. lol

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

What are you talking about?

Really. Why do you hate unions?

[-] 0 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

just because he wants to stop corruption by anyone does not mean he "hates" unions. The unions buy politicians the same as everyone else does. Let's stop it across the board then it is not discrimination.

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

Actually, they are very different. In both volume and reporting.

I'm surprised you don't know that.

[-] 0 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

No, sorry, they're not very different. Money is money and overall unions give more than anyone:


[-] 4 points by seaglass (671) from Brigantine, NJ 12 years ago

BS they are. Unions are the only orgs. left between the 1% having it all and some (not nearly enough) of the 99% having something.

[-] 3 points by losthumanity (58) 12 years ago

And yet, if you add up all the entries on that list, here's how it plays out:

Total spent by those that donate more to Reps than to Dems: $1,157,861,479

Total spent by those that donate more to Dems than Reps: $1,137,106,302

[-] -2 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

Yeah? So, as I said, they're basically the same as far as influence on politics. Because they're about even doesn't make the overall situation better. In fact worse because it's just created more of a money race.

[-] 3 points by losthumanity (58) 12 years ago

Please don't make me rebuild the spreadsheet again.

Of those that are more Dem than Rep, many are non-union. And none of the unions are on the more Rep than Dem side. In other words, non-unions heavy-hitters are the bigger slice of the pie. Corporatocracy.

This is all just politicking, trying to undermine the last bastion of non-plutocratic influence on government so Republicans can win and relinquish the entirety of the public sphere to corporate interests.

Let's go 100% public campaign financing and end monied lobbying and the revolving door. Until then, get your fucking RWNJ hands off the unions.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

Wow, as someone who knows plenty of people IN unions and thinks they are corrupted as all hell at the top, you need to check yourself.

[-] -2 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

I'm about tired of you pinheads thinking that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of your standard talking points is a RWNJ.

Once again, the point is not who gave incrementally more. Your point about this being some effort "to undermine the last bastion... blah blah blah" doesn't even make sense since nobody is trying to independently limit union contributions. Rather, it is OWS, or at least some members here, who are saying "Get money out of politics! Oh... except the unions... they're our buddies since we're mostly shills for the Dems." lol

Public financing is fine with me. Killing it all is fine with me. But you can't support getting money out of politics half way. Stop trying so hard to justify the very obvious hypocricy.

[-] 2 points by losthumanity (58) 12 years ago

Suck my shit, dittohead bitch. (you toned yours down after I responded, I'm leaving mine as-is)

I haven't seen a single person talking about an exception to public campaign financing (getting money out of politics) for unions. That's a typical RWNJ strawman.

Just like the typical RWNJ false equivalency between unions and the corporate domination of all things public and private. The multinationals own this shit, but you fucks gotta have some "fair and balanced" scapegoat in the form of unions. Go to hell.

[-] -1 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

lol. So in other words, you're admitting that you don't really want money out of politics. Fine, you're hypocrites and now it's clear to anyone reading what your position really is.

By arguing that union money is "different" than that of businesses (as above), they are in fact making that argument. Money is money regardless where it comes from and it has the same corrupting effect.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 12 years ago

IF unions werent corrupted, they would have never voted D again after NAFTA was signed. That was a HUGE dagger right in their back. But the unions get kick backs, so they keep it up. They arent represented properly anymore than you are.

Invite the union workers, but avoid sponsorship. Same for D and R.

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

That's not the only way.

Accounting is very different.

But, even if that was the case.

Why do you HATE unions?

[-] -1 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

lol. The accounting is not at all different. If you want to try to claim so, then explain how.

I don't hate unions. In fact I was in CWA at one time. I don't like that they have become largely lobbying and recruitment organizations for the Democratic party and that members have no say in that.

[-] 3 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

Support the IWW, then. They don't give to politicians or lobby groups.

But if you want workers to sit back and take what the bosses throw at them, it's never going to happen.

[-] -1 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

??? Nobody is talking about whether unions are generally beneficial. This is specifically about union money in politics.

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

Unions must account for every single penny.

Corporations don't. Corporations also fund many think tanks, front groups, marketing/PR firms, astro turfing and stuff even I never heard of, that contribute money and ideology.

Unions can't do that.

So, in the end, you just don't like the idea of union organizing? You want them all to just shut up and go away?

[-] 1 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

Re your "union equivalent to Heritage, CATO and ALEC" those would be considered "think tanks" or policy organizations, not lobbying firms or in the realm of political contributions that are the subject of money in politics. That said, there are many similar organizations on the left which receive substantial union funding. EPI is one easy example with a breakdown of funding on it's own site (so you can't whine about source):


So, again, you're up to demonstrate the difference that you claim. Don't worry, I'm not actually expecting that you will offer anything beyond the same BS that you have so far in this thread.

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

That was a pretty lame attempt.

Now, find the union equivalent of ALEC.

Just so you have something for comparison.


[-] 1 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

Like I said, just more of your same bullshit.

I'm done.

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

You never started. So I guess you are done.

You proved nothing, but your own ignorance.

I take it you approve of the ALEC writing laws for all the lazy republicans.

Makes me think, you are lazy too.

[-] -2 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

Wrong. Unions do exactly the same things through their funding of various groups both with respect to contributions and lobbying. The same rules apply to both.

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

Not hardly.

Did you get this from Heritage or CATO?

[-] 0 points by FrankieJ (86) 12 years ago

YOU are the one making a claim that there is some difference in the "accounting." YOU need to support your claim. So quit trying to walk it back and turn it around to me and either put up or shut up.

Here are the CFR regs. Show me where the difference is that limits unions.


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

I'm sorry.

I want you to show me the union equivalent to Heritage, CATO and ALEC.

If you can't? Everything you say is suspect.

[+] -4 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Sorry, you are a hypocrire, plain and simple. You can't have it both ways. It just make you look fake. Silly more than anything.

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

Your knee is jerking.

Do they have a pill for that yet?

Talk to your doctor, or your union nurse.

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 12 years ago

Your idea of what the OWS hates is hardly accurate. Not to mention the OWS is not a homogeneous group.

[-] 4 points by vladimirdavidovich (9) 12 years ago

I appreciate the initiatives OWS is taking around 'black friday', housing, and the many other issues addressed in actions. The 'talk' in the forums allows anti-movement individuals (and organizations) to 'participate', but you won't find them at the actions/sit-ins and other exemplary direct democracy developments---unless they are wearing badges and carrying clubs and pepper spray, or in 'street clothes', working for homeland security/FBI/justice dept/and the coalition of mayors determined to suppress the movement.

[-] 4 points by vladimirdavidovich (9) 12 years ago

I am noticing an analogy developing in posts to forum. If you review posts to Yahoo news articles, etc., you will notice a preponderance of right-wing propaganda in the posts. It appears to be organized. I suspect the same process is/will be developing here, as this virtual right-wing propaganda campaign has a semblance of coordination. That is why posts like this one, attacking unions because of the political weaknesses of their leaderships, make me comment here.

[-] -3 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Nope, I just see that you are wrong for standing with unions when they are doing just what OWS hates. I read about it all the time. No big money to politics. That is your battle cry. Now, give me a good real answer instead of the right wing BS.

[-] 3 points by harry2 (113) 12 years ago

What way do you think will work? Workers today earn about the same value they used to earn in the 70th.

But had to deal with rising cost on Healthcare, Insurance, Food, Gasoline, and Credit Card interest rates. (they covered the missing balance in income).

Ah, Just forgot the lost Equity do to fraudulent and not investigated actions by mortgage lawyers, bankers... And of course the higher taxes in the future to pay for the bailout. And reductions in earned entitlements and social security!

Great, and the unions are the problem? Guess yes they did not manage to regulate the income of there-members in the 80th when president Reagan shut Unions down.

The economy can only survive if money is being spend - preferable earned money. But the earned equity is now also in the hands of banks and the 1% - so what is a way out?

No Unions, No Government, No Banks, No Monopolist... No...No.. and No...?

70% of the national Real Estate is owned by the banks. That is more then the Communists in the former soviet unions owned.

So what do you think is the best for the economy? No Taxes? Guess if there are no earnings and if people file lost equity in there tax return, then we may not even talk about taxes anymore.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

The real estate mess is because folks making $50,000 a year bought homes costing $400-500,000. It is their fault, the home buyers . They signed the papers knowing that in two years when their payment would go up to $3500 a month, they could not make the payment. That is why the banks own 70% of real estate. Every house I have ever bought, I read the contract and saw how much my payment would be. It is the home buyers fault. They should have known better.

[-] 1 points by harry2 (113) 12 years ago

Thats a to easy answer! What about the banks? Don't you think they have a responsibility towards there customers, the once that save money, or invest in bonds, to lend AAA for real-estate financing?

Banks are responsible to check the lenders situation for there suppliers of funds. And exactly that did not happened. As you correctly stated.

Thats why I call it consumer protection fraud and more... It effected all consumers not only the once that could not make there payments. It even effected you, because your houses are worth less now.

[-] 3 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

It is a smart thing, because unions provide the only means in which workers can opt to fight the negative excesses of their bosses. We ought to be standing for workers striving to make changes in their lives. Not just standing with them, but occupying alongside them.

If you're worried about unions supporting the DNC, then support the IWW. They avoid political contributions and even rally against it. If you fail to support that union, too - you're pretty not at all concerned whether or not the unions give to the DNC. You are indirectly aiming your trust towards the 1%.

[-] 3 points by debndan (1145) 12 years ago

Nope, and nope. We are giving the unions a place where their voice is equal, and not subservient to corporate voices.

But here's anouther thought....


Then after you read that, come up with how that is some DNC plot too.

[+] -4 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

It is no plot. When I was in a union my mailbox was filled with DNC voting guides for the DNC. They give money to the DNC! Plain and simple....like you.

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

why do you hate unions?


[-] -3 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

They take from the middle class and give to the rich. Or, the DNC

[-] 6 points by losthumanity (58) 12 years ago

Unions make the middle class.

[+] -4 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

If you are for the unions then you are a hypocrite. Why are corporations so evil if unions do the very same thing?

[-] 4 points by losthumanity (58) 12 years ago

Look up the definition of trade union. Then the definition of corporation. Then read the history of the workers' struggles in this country, maybe finish it off with Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. Then go flog yourself.

[+] -4 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

It is still lobbying with money to go to politics. There is no difference. It is the same. Another with no brain. Dang! It is still lobbying.

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

Unions don't take from the middle class.

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

Unions got nothing on the monies corporations confiscate from you to give to the cause of the 1%.

Yet you don't complain.


[-] 2 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

the unions are our working class roots, our ancestors, our previous lives so we must have TOTAL SOLIDARITY WITH THE UNIONS. it's the agents of male only fascist dogmatic hierarchies who have controlled us in the past. the christian church is a male only hierarchy used by the fascist elite to control us. look at the pope and the queen of england both well known german fascists. freemasons are the other fascist hierarchy who think they are better than us. both christians and freemasons say man is bad and war is good.

[-] -3 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Can't have it both ways. You are wrong. OWS can not stand with the unions. If you think it is ok, you are a hypocrite.

[-] 1 points by sufinaga (513) 12 years ago

we are an ancient community of human beings not a dogma. the ENEMY is the fascist elite, the queen and freemason/knights templar. they control the money, banks, law, main street, the hated police. you are trying to divide the poor against one another. therefore you are a fascist agent and an enemy of our community.

[-] 2 points by pippisax (2) from Modena, Emilia Romagna 12 years ago

hello! i'm italian....we are angry like you i can write only en spanish. So...todos espero, saben lo que esta pasando en Italia! Nosotros nos no queremos la BCE, Mario Monti es un servo de los financheros, tambien mario draghi y el nostro President Napolitano. Nos estan quitando trabajo, casas, nos vamos solo a pagar empuestos para pagar deudas a los bancos.Pero no todos saben lo que va a pasar,y por eso no tenemos bastante fuerza para luchar porque nos dan informaciones manipuladas. Hay personan que intentan comunicar y explicar que es todas una mentiras que las cosas van a peyorar, pero la gente no saben que hacer y como cambiar esta situaccion. Yo creo que tenemos que estar unidos, y comunicar, saber lo que pasa allì, e tambien lo que sta pasando en europa! Tenemos todos los mismos problemas y esta es mi messaje de ayuda...luchamos juntos silvia

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

I do have to admit that there is some hypocrisy with the Unions supporting the OWS movement. Unions them self are not the problem but the money they throw at our politicians is.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Thank you!!!!!!! You have a brain!!!! I agree that corporations should not give to politics. But Unions should not give cash also. There is no difference.

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

The problem is that the Unions can't just say i will stop giving money to our politicians...

All that is going on right now is people are complaining about the system. Until we start changing the system, you can't hold the Unions to a different standard. They are just playing the game the way it's set up. We need to change the rules and if the Unions want to help us do that. Great !!!

It is hypocritical in a way but at the same time we have no other choice.

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

You have a choice, Tell the unions that you are not interested. If you do not, you are a hypocrite. Rush will catch you on it!

[-] 4 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

Please... You have to play the game the way it's set up and you know that.

As for Rush, Next time you call into his show... Ask him why he got busted with an un-prescribed bottle of Viagra coming home from one of the worlds most renown child prostitution hotspots.

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

If you support unions and they support OWS, then you are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. I love how you folks do not have an answer so you try to change it around. You know that I'm right.

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

The only thing i " know " for sure is that your mom dropped you on your head a lot when you were a child.

As for it being hypocritical of me to support the Unions that throw money at our politicians while at the same time support the OWS that is mostly in favor of ending that practice... Maybe a little. Call me a hypocrite then. I will gladly be one on this subject if it means a better country.

[-] -3 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

You just know that I'm right. So you can only say the "drop on your head" thing. The number one thing that you want to stop is corporations giving to politics. Yet you are OK for big unions giving to the DNC. You sir have no brain. Maybe there is somethere that can write for you?

[-] 3 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

Settle down princess... I agreed with you.

I'm a hypocrite on the subject and I'm proud of it ! I will gladly be a hypocrite on this subject if it means a better country for all of us.

[-] -3 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Then OWS is fake. Can't have it both ways.

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 12 years ago

Oh you're just the cutest little thing aren't ya ... Of course we can have it both ways, and we will. At least until we clean up the mess you and your little Tea Terrorists created.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Just by saying that shows that you are corrupt. You are just like the corporations. Just not as smart.

[-] 2 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

If, for what it's worth, unions giving money to the DNC is against the corporate elite. I will be hesitant to say the 1%, since union bosses could be in the 1%. So, a lot of us aren't going to say anything on it because it helps fight against the corporate elite.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

terrible answer. It is still the same, lobbying politics. Can't have it both ways. Make you folks look small. Hypocrite.

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

only in your mind.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Do you agree that the unions give money from dues to politics like the DNC? Do you think it is Ok? Do you think it is OK for corporations to do the same?

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 12 years ago

Why do you think Corporations are equal to Unions? Why use the right wing narrative, that is known to be fake.....

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Unions give to big politics. You are a hypocrite.

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

I think it would be perfectly OK if they both stopped.

Providing, corporations also stop donating to other organizations that promote anti-union agendas. They are legion. Many of them have been extremely well funded for over 100 years.

How would you allow unions to make up for lost ground?

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 12 years ago

Providing Corporations are legally barred from making any donations to candidates and all interest groups.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

They can't really. I think unions were a good thing for many years but now I think they just want too much. The Post Office unions just won big in their contracts but they really lost. The post office cannot sustain the costs. 120,000 of these winners will soon be laid off.

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

The USPS, due to a bill signed as Bush left office, has to fund it's full retirement program out to 75 years, in a very short time.

Wasn't that nice of him...........:)

Nice way to make USPS books look bad, just as the economy crashes and burns, and he knew it.

Republicans really do suck, you know.

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Won't really matter when 120,000 get laid off because of Email and bill pay. Why should we pay thousands of folks great pay with great medical when they deliver 90% junk mail. Let your mail add up for a month and you will see that the Post Office is corrupt and fake. Fire them!

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

You're fake and corrupt.

Do have anything other than hyperbole?

The postman is most definitely part of the 99%.

You obviously prefer tyranny.

So to you I say:

Welcome the Plutocratic States of the Military Industrial Complex.

You have been assimilated.

Please step aside.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

I did not think of that! Probably now that you reminded me. Dang. Have a good ribeye!

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Sorry, sometimes in a rant I type fast on my computer. Have a happy Thanksgiving!

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

Happy Thanksgiving to you to.

Do they make a union turkey?

I'm having Steak.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

I'll step aside asfter we rid the world of corrupt unions and make the fake Post Office go private.

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

Well, at least you capitalized Post Office.

Thanks for that respect.

Have fun with your assimilation.

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

If you cannot guarantee that the corps will not shaft the workers then they cannot go away. You cannot have it both ways. :D

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

I'm saying that it is wrong for unions or corporations to give money to politics.

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

I got you down.

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Thank you, you finally got it!!!!

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

Yep. You aren't at all interested in what unions donate.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

That does not matter. They still give big money to politics like the DNC. If you think that is OK then is it OK for corporations to give to the GOP? No, it is not. Can't have it both ways.

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


[-] 1 points by zootsuit (34) 12 years ago

unions = living wage = middle class = strong economy.

no unions = rich get richer, poor get poorer.

the bottom line is there are many strategies for changing america. and using the current political system to fight the political system is one of them.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

This statement is so hostile to the basic values of OWS that I don't know where to begin. In may respects OWS can trace it's origins back to the movement in Wisconsin last winter, which was an occupation movement and was very specifically to preserve collective bargaining right.

Labor union are literally the only organizations that working people have in this nation that they can call their own and they are the only institutions that protect working people, that stand between individual working people and the power of the boss.

Without organized labor OWS very probably would not exist. It was the power of organized labor that basically faced down the cops and prevented the first attempt at eviction. Labor unions are providing storage space, meeting space, showers and toilets for occupations in New York and all over the nation.

Labor unions are crucial and even essential to the struggle for a more just society. At best I find the posting that started this thread thoughtless, at worst mean spirited and totally antithetical to the values of OWS.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Unions give to Big politics . You are a hypocrite. We will destroy the unions one at a time.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

How would anyone go about the task of destroying the labor movement? By declaring them illegal? By having the police go after union members with mace and billy clubs and pepper spray and plastic fencing? An injury to one is an injury to all! Solidarity forever!

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

No, just make them lose their power. After 401k's come in, you will not really need them. All of America will go to the 401k system.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Your response is a non sequitor. The way unions are formed is that working people come together to organize them. What mechanisms would be used to prevent that? Dogs? Shot guns? Fire hoses? Pepper Spray? Billy clubs? I'm serious. How do you prevent the organization of democratic organizations in a society that claims to be democratic?

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

They take money from union dues and give to big politics. Just like corporations. Hypocrite.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I am not disputing that the is corruption in a few unions and bureaucracy in practically all. That said, they are still the most democratic institutions in American society and what is more the only protection that working people have against the boss. Since they are, at bottom organizations of working people themselves it is possible for the members to rise up and rid their organizations of corruption in the few places where it exists and bureaucratic inertia practically everywhere else.

Meanwhile I still haven't heard how anyone opposed to workers organizing themselves would propose exactly how they would go about preventing them from doing so if they so chose.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Unions are corrupt. They take dues from the workers and give it to big politics. They give to the DNC. You are a hypocrite. All large unions give to the DNC. Not just a tiny few.

[-] 2 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

I'd agree that it is not in the interest of working people to have their organizations give money to a party that does not represent their class interest. But it's not exactly corrupt either. Certainly it shows a lack of foresight and clarity. Perhaps it can even be reasonably characterized as stupid, but it is not, in and of itself corrupt. Of course, nearly all the unions, not just the big ones, contribute money to the Democratic Party and unfortunately this is just fine with most of the membership (which is one reason why it is not inherently corrupt--just short sighted and stupid). Mechanisms exist in virtually every union to circumvent such contributions, but they are seldom resorted to precisely because the vast majority of the membership either agrees to funding the Democratic Party or is indifferent to the practice. Again, this is not especially far sighted on their part, but it isn't exactly corrupt either.

But again, you still have yet to answer exactly how, legally, workers could and would be prevented from organizing themselves which is, after all, what a union is no matter how big or small it is.

[-] 1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

My point is that OWS is against big corporations giving to big politics. That is your number one complaint. I read it here all the time. The workers could vote the unions out. I know folks who wish there was no union. I was in a union once and wanted to leave after a year and they said no! Had to jump through a ton of hoops. Like leaving Hotel Calfornia! I do think unions are on the way out. At least the public sector ones. Old style pensions are being replaced with 401k systems.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 12 years ago

Corprorations are fundamentally different from unions starting with the fact that corporations are a capitalist enterprize and unions are organizations of working people. By definition the boss cannot belong to a union. Only workers can belong to a union.

Corporations are organized to maximize profits for their investors. That is their mandate. Unions are organized by working people, for working people so that working people can act collectively in their own interest. True, no union is as democratic as it should be. A tiny few are genuinely corrupt. Nearly all are more bureaucratic than they need to be.

But ultimately they are not only all that stands between the boss and the individual working stiff, they are also, bureaucratic, corrupt and short sighted as they may be organizations of working people, organized by working people in the percieved interest of working people. True unions will discipline workers who they think are not acting in solidarity when those workers are in a minority, but any enterpirze where a majority of workers do not want a union will not have a union unless the boss has pulled some kind of sweetheart contract to allow in a gangster ridden union that functions more in his interest than in the interest of the membership, but those instances are very few and far between.

You still haven't explained how ordinary working people would or could be legally prevented form coming together and organizing in their self interest, which is all a union ultimately is.

[-] 1 points by 99time (92) 12 years ago

Unions spend a good deal of "hard money" on politics. Nevertheless, large corporate interests spend far more total money using the devices of "soft money," electioneering, "independent expenditures" and others. Thanks to the 5-4 Citizens United decision, this funding is now unlimited; and there are very few disclosure requirements.

Besides spending more than double on electioneering for large corporations, those corporations also own the bulk of the media including the TV. That's lots of free propaganda!

[-] 1 points by TexasThunder (68) 12 years ago

I find our elected officials incompetent to govern. They need some incentive that will mean something to them instead of putting funds at risk that will cause harm to those persons and institutions who can least afford such loss. I suggest that these officials’ pay and/or benefits be cut if and/or when they fail to do their job. As it is, party “a” threatens to harm parties “”d” through “z” if parties “b” and “c” can’t come to an agreement. It makes no sense whatsoever to threaten Congress with cuts that will not have any impact on them directly. Our Constitution establishes the type of government we are to have. We do not need to establish any “sub” groups within these institutions. They are all responsible collectively to govern and if/when they fail to do so they are all liable collectively. The “carrot and stick” method only works when the carrot or stick is guaranteed to the same one. These officials have received their carrot upon being elected as they shall receive full pay and full benefits for the rest of their life even if they only serve one term. I say put all options “on the table” including their lifetime pay and benefits. I’m of the position that such a “stick” would cause these officials to get their head out of the clouds and their feet on the ground.

[-] 1 points by 99time (92) 12 years ago

First, the unions are standing with US, not the other way around.

Unions include aspects of representation. The union members will be better able to 'call-to-task' the official union leaders by joining OWS, and maybe even replace them with those more friendly to the 99 percent.


[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Unions are corrupt. They give millions to big p[olitics. Just whay OWS hates. You are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. You are a fake. We can see through you.

[-] 1 points by daverose1270 (9) 12 years ago

Wall when you are right you are right the DNC is just as much of the problem as the GOP. Both are out of touch and only seem intrusted in scoring points on one other. Unions i just don't trust the one i was in just took my money and when i need them they did not even return letters and phone calls.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Thank you. Unions are corrupt. Unmions dues go to the DNC. Hypocrites!!!!!

[-] 1 points by number2 (914) 12 years ago

we should get the money out of politics period. that goes for anyone who wants to buy politicians.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

You are right sir. Thank you. No GOP, no DNC.

[-] 1 points by freedomanddemocracy (72) 12 years ago

This is a free country, this movement is a free and democratic movement, there are no leaders and the main concern is making the 1% who control the goverment, the banks , the corporations, and Wall Street aware of our concerns, beliefs and end greed and corruption by the 1%. If Unions want to participate, then they as Americans Citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution to demonstrate for what they stand for and believe! This movement is a movement that concerns everyone person that is an American Citizen, and their rights, their jobs, their benefits and their freedoms are being eroded by the 1% who control the goverment and private sector in this country! By all means, they have the right to demonstrate and the more people who join this movement, the better. We encourage Unions, Teachers, Firefighters, Goverment Workers, Health Workers, Policemen, the employed as well as the unemployed, the Elderly, Students, those on social services, the handicapped, etc.etc., for what is going on is that the 1% led by Republicans and Tea Party members in the House and Senate have created chaos and gridlock in Congress, they are the ones that have chosen to support the tax cuts to the rich and corporations and instead cut social programs, get rid of SS and Medicare, tax the poor and Middle Class more, voted down job programs and programs to help Teachers, Firefigters, Policemen and other workers with programs that would have kept them from losing their jobs due to cuts in their communities. Yes, we encourage all Americans to join the movement, if you are not the rich 1% who are millionaires and ship our jobs overseas, cut our wages and benefits, take away our homes and businesses while they themselves get tax cuts,subsidies, tax breaks and incentives to make them more wealthy is wrong and the movement will stop them in the 2012 elections!!!

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

If you welcome the unions, you are a hypocrite. They give to big politics just like corporations. Plain and simple. No matter how you suger coat it. The economy is in terrible, horrible shape, I think the GOP will take it.

[-] 1 points by Lane33 (5) from Tehachapi, CA 12 years ago

I think that the unions that are willing to take part are ones we should allow. Thee bad ones that screw their employees and refuse to fight for them wont have the balls to support Occupations

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

They still give money to politics. Just what you hate. Hypocrite.

[-] 1 points by StevenRoyal (490) from Dania Beach, FL 12 years ago

No one is saying we want to have it both ways. You are attacking a straw man. Unions are made up of workers and we embrace workers. If, as you say, the number one goal is to get the money out of politics, then the union workers would agree with you. If there is a level playing field, where both corporate money and union money are driven out of politics, guess what? The price of goods would go down as the corporate money would be out of politics and the union dues would go down as the union money would be out of politics.

Contributions should be made only by people, not organizations, and there should be a limit of $200 per adult so that a rich person and a poor person's voice are more level (since money = voice per the US Supreme Court).

Of course, without organizations, the rich can afford to hire lobbyists to further their causes behind the scenes, but that is another matter that needs to be dealt with.

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

If Unions want the power to be taken from themselves, why should you disagree?

By my understanding, they're just standing by you and supporting from the side. I think Im missing something here..?

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

They are everything you hate. They give money to politics. That is wrong. Just as wrong as corporations giving to politics.

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

"The Union of journalists, sold out to the government, went on strike just the same day of the general strike in Greece, so you 'll see no news reports on this one, as usual."


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

So, just so we are clear. As long as the unions did not send any money to DNC----you don't have a problem with them?

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

No, they still make labor in the US cost too much. That is why we are making stuff in China now.

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

So, this really doesn't have anything at all to do with any money that is given to the DNC. Secondly, this doesn't have anything to do with the "middle class".

I am willing to hear this argument out, providing that you are willing to explain it.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

His worry about the cost of labor almost sounds as if he's a property owner. It would probably be rare for a typical working person or typical consumer to talk about worries about the cost of labor being too much. If not, fine. If he wants to spend his life making $10, fine. There's no much we can do about it. He's not ready to join us. Maybe he never will be, but there will likely be many others to take his place.

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

I agree. I just do not understand the need to create a fictitious argument about hypocrisy when what he wants is to break the unions. It's an argument that is nothing more than an attempt to deceive.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

I already did. Go back to the start. OWS is standing with big unions.

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

Hmmm. The only hypocrisy that I see is coming from you.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Wow! No brain again!

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

Is that it, then? Deception?

I am SHOCKED. Shocked, I tell you.

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 12 years ago

BMW closed a component plant in Germany and built a new plant in the US, WHY? Because the Labor in Germany was more expensive.

Maybe you might advocate for repealing the tax breaks for outsourcing of US jobs, instead of spouting the right wing narrative.

The US is no longer the hi wage country it was 30 years ago.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Unions give big money to big politics. You are a hypocrite. Plain and simple. You are so fake. You should be telling me that I am right and that you will stop the unions from standing with OWS.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

That is because corporations are private tyrannies, in both their external and their external operations. The fact that they threaten to move their operations overseas because of workers trying to better their lives is tyrannical. That does not in any way lessen my support for the working class. If companies threaten to do that, then we occupy them. Pure and simple.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

The number one reason for corporations is to make money. That is it. They can move to China or anyplace they want. For a corporation to set up in America they must pay the government 35%. Other countries cost as low as 12-14%. It is a no brainer.

[-] 0 points by 53percenter (125) 12 years ago

The unions started this movement and the OWS kids are their "useful idiots".

[-] 0 points by Edgewaters (912) 12 years ago

In principle I have nothing against the idea of unions, someone has to fight for the rights of workers and collective bargaining is a must for any workers who want to get paid a living wage.

That being said, the unions are totally corrupt. They do fund the political elites, and they are largely disinteresting in representing low-paid service industry workers, preferring to stick with workers who have earning potential in order to gain more dues. Yes they do make token efforts in the service industries, but this is no different from corporations doing token things for good PR. To me unions seem to have become a business themselves. Just look at the salaries of the union leaders ... six-figure salaries!

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Thank you. Finally a great answer.

[-] 0 points by Danimal98367 (188) from Port Orchard, WA 12 years ago

Don't expect a good answer. OWS needs the unions to add legitimacy to their cause and so they sometimes pay lip service to the "unions shouldn't fund politics either" line but cannot afford to actually act on it.

[-] -2 points by LetsGetReal (1420) from Grants, NM 12 years ago

I agree that it was/is a strategic error. Why can't union members just join with OWS as individuals rather than as members of other organizations? I think it would strengthen and broaden the appeal of Occupy if they avoid organizational affiliations.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

If a group of workers, all within a union, come to us for support? Each one is joining us as an individual.

If an organization wants to support us in some form or another, I generally don't have a problem with that. What I don't want to see is unions trying to support us with money, nor any organization for that matter. Donations, fine. Money, no.

[-] 1 points by aeturnus (231) from Robbinsville, NC 12 years ago

I mean, donations, as in food, clothing, etc. Not money, and definitely no favors.

[-] -1 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Thank you, you have a brain!!!!!!!!!!

[+] -4 points by raines (699) 12 years ago

The unions ( under stern , gerard and trumpka ) are all for violence. They're in it for money and power. Didn't you see the video of Trumpka and 0bama? Trumka said to the crowd "We are your army".

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

yup. Open your eyes. Unions are history. OWS stay away from them.

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

Without collective bargaining power you will continue to bend over workers.

[-] -2 points by raines (699) 12 years ago

Thats why the union people went nuts with Govenor Walker. unions want mandatory union dues deductions from paychecks. That's their power. When it's voluntary, most members don't pay up.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

The free ride laws that apply only to unions get pretty strange if you actually think about them. You get the services, and then decide to pay for them, or not. But you get them either way.

Should car repair work that way? I bring the car in, they have to repair it, but I get to decide to pay, or not?

The union works with members to increase pay, to improve working conditions, and to provide a legal system so that some of the most arbitrary, unfair actions can be blocked. If the non-payers did not get any of those, that would be fair. But they get them if the law requires free ride for them.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Not really. I've know government workers that were not the the union that had a problem and the union just dragged it's feet.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 12 years ago

If the person is not in the union, the union cannot help them at all. That's not foot dragging. They aren't represented if they're not in the union.

And since not all problems can be solved, even union members sometimes have to deal with situations that do not fall within the labor laws, the contract, or the strength of the union to resolve.

[-] 0 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

I agree. But the part that is corrupt is the unions giving to politics like the DNC. That is just not right. It is not alright for corporations to lobby.

[-] -1 points by raines (699) 12 years ago

people are forced to belong to unions. what union leaders do is collect money to use for their own political power.

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 12 years ago

Union membership is down over the last 30 years. Workers are being forced out of Unions.

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

Then you need a job in Somalia.........:)

A libertarian paradise.

[-] -1 points by raines (699) 12 years ago

the somalian pirates are libertarians? who knew?

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

Very libertarian. Any boat on their "property", is fair game.

And they "choose", where the property line is.

No worries about government regulations.

[-] -3 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

People should not HAVE to be in a union. Thank God they are going away.

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

They should not have to be. Should is the operative word. So, how is it exactly that you would ensure that workers did not get shafted?

[-] -2 points by mandodod (144) 12 years ago

Remove the unions. End their power. Look, I think to protest is a good American thing. But if you stand with the uinons, you are a hypocrite. That is all that I am saying. It is still big money. I think a lot of the things that OWS wants it good. But you must do it the right way or you will get slammed by much smarter folks than me. And I can see through this stuff very easy. Think what they can find?

[-] 1 points by OccupyTheMind (4) 12 years ago

@mandodod reading the previous posts it is obvious you have a fundamental problem with unions, therefore anything you say about them and their money can't be taken seriously because no matter what you would still hate them. You just don't like unions so anyone on here reading the crap that your posting plz don't listen to his right wing bs.

That said, no one should be supporting politicians with any money. They all should be using public financing at the local, state and federal levels and only accept small donations from citizens ($100-200 max). But do not demonize the unions for having to support dems and DNC who won't take away their union rights. They have adapted to a situation CREATED by corporations who funnel millions of dollars into every election to get what they want. Not to mention, the amount that corporations donate compared to the amount unions donate is very different. Some unions may have gotten very large and have lots of $ now but they will never compare to the billions dollar corporations and their enormously large groups of extremely talented lawyers. Unions are the best thing to have ever happened to labor but they are still made up of human beings who are susceptible to corruption. And the level of corruption at unions is nothing compared to what goes on in the corporate world. So do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop spewing the hateful shit just because you don't understand labor and it's importance.

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

The cat's out of the bag. Your done.

[-] -3 points by raines (699) 12 years ago

Not according to the union bosses,..........and 0bama