Forum Post: VW wants to unionize, GOP hates that.
Posted 10 years ago on July 2, 2013, 3:58 p.m. EST by shoozTroll
(17632)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
And all the "right to work" lies that go with it.
Attempts to unionize a Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, TN are meeting fierce retaliation from anti-union forces inside the beltway.
VW officials have expressed interest in unionization ahead of expansions at their East Tennessee facility. The United Auto Workers (UAW) are working with VW to create a union model that closely resembles successful Germany efforts, where management and workers come together to meet common goals. In a recent interview with AutoNews, UAW President Bob King discussed how this kind of system could help give workers a stronger voice:
What we can tell you is: we’re eager to form a representation model built on collaboration and cooperation that’s consistent with the VW culture and philosophy.
VW officials at the plant have openly discussed unionization and a healthy relationship seems to have spawned from that. Yet, anti-union politicians are painting unionization as a death stroke for Tennessee workers. These tactics have ramped up in lockstep with encouraging signs from the labor talks.
I love how these "bought and paid for by corporate lobbyists" politicians are always talking about the union being bad for jobs. I'm a union worker for a large corporation and whenever I've been on strike in the past I would notice there always seemed to be literally 100 bus loads of hooples from all the nearby non union states that would travel to my state and try to get my job. If things were so great for the workers in these non union states I don't think you would consistently see this happen.
You can get in trouble, talking like that around here.
There is an unprecedented anti-union faction around.
They don't much care for the truth of "right to work" and the kinds of wide spread damage it an do.
http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2013/06/11/indiana-one-of-just-eight-states-to-see-tax-revenue-decline/
its just a power differential
management has all the power
are we being managed by our government now? Can't disagree with you there Matt - seems they think of the American populous as their employees (we citizens are just tools to make elite money "work" for the elites) - a sad state of state affairs - and yet we're all going to work as hard as we can for them "o boy'" because we have really great ethics and bootstraps and shit and just to prove we not only aren't lazy (but self-sacrificing suckers) because we have good ol fashion "American" pride (for those of us who still have delusions of Democracy) - to that I say "Go fry your ass!" - not only to Congress but to those Americans too!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-economy-is-a-carefully-constructed-machine-not/
mostly we are managed by those that can pay us
(those people are not the government)
because we need money for food and rent
You're missing the point that management has seen the light and WANTS the UAW to represent it's workers.
It's the GOP and it's "right to work" promoters that are up in arms.
The workers may want to organize on their own, the UAW leadership kind of sold everyone down the river when they voted for CAFTA and NAFTA and GATT.
READ the damn article.
VW wants the UAW to represent it's workforce.
The GOP is up in arms over it.
( They've been going out of their way to limit job growth for at least 15 years now.)
It seems that almost everyone who comments misses that point, and tries to completely change the subject..
Is VW interested in shipping more jobs overseas?
READ the damn article!!
Shall I post a link to ALEC and "right to work" legislation, for your edification?
VW is going to say that because they couldnt get the union through, thats why they are outsourcing more jobs.
"The alternative for VW is to move their operation to Mexico".
Why would the alternative to this be outsourcing? It doesnt make sense.
They are simply setting themselves up to look like decent people when they do eventually ship more jobs out of the country into cheap cheap labor.
I would honestly like to believe that VW was serious about this, but I doubt it. Then again, there is a chance. We will have to see how it plays out. If they claim that they couldnt get the union through, therefore instead of expanding in Tennessee they are expanding in Mexico, then we will know it was all just pr fluff.
PR fluff is what I just read.
The rabid, anti-union stance of the "south", will be what drives those jobs away.
"Right to work" legislation has caused more damage to the working man and our country, than can be easily calculated.
I'm not trying to take away from what the article states, but there seems to be an underlying message there that doesnt make any sense, whatsoever.
Unionize or we are outsourcing? That makes no sense whatsoever.
I mean, theres no point in debating wages when the job isnt there to begin with, right?
Republicans state that unions are bad, that the market does a better job. Well, Republicans, you shipped all our jobs out of here anyways, so what are we arguing about.
Democrats claim to back unions and workers. Well, Democrats, you shipped all our jobs out of here anyways, so what are we arguing about.
They can claim to be about privatizing, or pro union all they want. When they sign their names on the dotted lines to REMOVE the ENTIRE industry, then their stance should immediately go out the window. Along with them and their staff.
""Right to work" legislation has caused more damage to the working man and our country, than can be easily calculated."
I agree. I just dont see what their rationale is in this decision process:
Either unionize or we are outsourcing.
Shouldnt it just be "Either unionize or not, but we are expanding here in Tennessee. "
You dont think this rationale is a bit extreme and corrupt? Im not arguing about the points you just made, I'm trying to figure out why they would do it.
More PR fluff.
The jobs are there, VW and the UAW both want to organize.
"Right to work" bullshit, is making it impossible.
Their rational is beside the point.
"We really care about the workers here at VW. So much so, we want them to unionize. Because we arent like all the other multinationals. We are putting people over profit.. Because we care".
"Of course, if they dont get to put their union together, we are sending the jobs OUT OF THE COUNTRY. Thats right. If you cant get the union together, we are going to screw you the worst way possible. As in NO JOBS AT ALL".
Looks like a bunch of sociopaths run VW if you ask me.
Looks like they are setting this up perfectly for both sides to blame each other, when their intention was never to keep the jobs here to begin with.
What kind of slime would send the jobs overseas because they didnt unionize?
I can see it already. The right blaming the unions for screwing it up, and the left blaming the right for propagandizing the thing and screwing it up.
People arguing with each other over details to solutions that were never the plan to begin with.
Sound familiar?
Their rationale is what is going to drive the end result. Its not PR bullshit, its called setting the workers up to get screwed.
Whether they unionize or not should not have ANYTHING to do with outsourcing the jobs. NONE. That is total bullshit. That is typical corporate bullshit.
And if you cant see that their plan is to send these jobs overseas regardless of what happens then you need to start digging deeper here.
Union or not, sending the jobs overseas is the WORST scenario.
Unionize or we are shipping them overseas? Who the hell says that?!
What kind of attitude is that?!
The attitude of someone who doesnt give a shit, thats who. Keep falling for their press releases, VW is going to fuck their workers. Again.
Just like the rest of the auto industry.
Again.
Replying here.
Bullshit is not a link.
Sell your anti-union crap somewhere else.
You completely misinterpreted the article.
So you also support "right to work", and believe it makes no difference?
We already are an outsource for VW.
[Removed]
""The alternative for VW is to move their operation to Mexico."
Thats directly out of the article you posted.
Why would it say that?
Do you have a link to all that?
Or is it just more PR fluff?
I get the impression you don't care much for unions of any kind.
I do hope you build your own cars in your backyard.
"The alternative for VW is to move their operation to Mexico."
You are missing the entire point. VW is full of shit. Think about it.
If you owned a company, and you really wanted the workers to unionize, that would mean you actually care about them.
If they didnt, would you then screw them all and outsource it? Ofcourse not. But thats what this is stating. They are saying unionize or outsource. Its total nonsense. Sending the jobs out of the country is the absolute worst thing anyone can do.
Im for them unionizing. Unions in general in this country are the result of people motivating themselves and taking action, organizing.
My point is the underlying line of bullshit that VW is going to use as an excuse when it offshores this thing.
It now appears that the talks with the UAW have been a success and the new in the US German style "work-council" concept will be implemented.
http://www.freep.com/article/20130905/BUSINESS01/309050184/Volkswagen-letter-to-Tennessee-workers-confirms-talks-with-UAW
Huh - Chattanooga, Tenn.
Daymn anything "is" possible - no matter how improbable. Didn't auto manufacturers go south initially to break the unions? WELL - aAHHAahaha
Ummmm - does this mean that they will be looking to come north again?
VW demanded it............................:)
I'll try and keep an eye on how it works out. There's sure to be a write up in the UAWs Solidarity magazine, sooner or later.
The main thing " IS " - we gotta slap down the corp(se)oRATions - as those undead people(?) think the world is theirs. And they may be dead - but they seem to want the rest of us to be dead as well.
Corporations, don't "die" per se, they can live in perpetuity.
We "little people"?
Not so much.
Any unionization in those auto plants in the South, is a good thing.
You damn betcha.
"Right to work"
Would you like to bet on a negative reaction from it's supporters?
Don't.
It's already begun.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021755864_autounionsxml.html
[Removed]
It's worked quite well in Germany.
It used to work better here too, but recent changes in the auto industry have pushed it in the other direction.
If the GOP and it's adherents have their way, VW will not be allowed to implement it and may take it's manufacturing prowess elsewhere.
The party of NO has spoken much too loudly for far too long.
[Removed]
I would like to think it's run it's course, but the trend towards libe(R)topians, under the aegis of people like the Koch's and Peterson can not be denied.
Nor can their roots.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17290-the-marriage-of-libertarians-and-racists
Me Too. I think the general consensus is almost there. Yesterday - My sister who has been kinda luke-warm on the ills of this country - Well yesterday I mentioned how government was standing in the way of improvement - And - SHIT - She said with much vehemence:
"I Am Not Surprised. They all have got theirs - and could care less about anyone else."
This from an individual who felt pretty beat down and resigned not to very long ago. Apathy to ANGER in a very short period of time.
[Removed]
Gov. Bill Haslam and Mark West are both anti-American shmucks.
Mark West should be labeled as a lying freak of nature.
As is anyone who actively supports "right to work".
Precisely. Right to work is the biggest con. Something that has already been admitted.
Still, the part about this most are missing is that VW actually asked the UAW for cooperation on this, and they accepted knowing it's a different union model than the one they now use.
One that's worked well in Germany, for all parties.
An advancement in concept, if you would, that the GOP still refuses to accept.
Why??????
It makes no sense.
As effective as co-ops can be, in smaller concerns.
http://www.occupywallstreet.net/story/co-operatives-outpaced-growth-british-economy-2012
There are still many too large to adapt easily to the co-op concept, so we should always be in support of BIG businesses that don't mind unions.
[Removed]
After the Wendy Davis filibuster, it is things like this that make me think that maybe America is waking up.
As long as it goes beyond the rhetoric.
http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2013/07/02/dem-va-gov-candidate-verbally-supports-unions-workers-but-wont-likely-target-right-to-work-status/
They already know they have the upper hand in States that have "right to work" legislation.
I saw an e-mail today calling for Wendy to be DRAFTED as Governor.
I saw an interview with her - she hinted that she is running
Good for Her - Texas needs real change to enter the 21st century. Hope they get it.
What real change are you talking about? Should Texas be billions in debt like California? Should Texas have no jobs like a many other states? Should housing prices be increased so the average person can’t afford a home? Should Texas raise taxes to equal Net York rates?
I’m not positive, but I think Texas has been the number one destination state for companies and people looking for work for several years. Companies like Samsung, Google, Apple, Toyota and the list goes on move into Texas every year. People flock to Texas by the thousand every year for good paying jobs, less taxes, affordable housing and better lifestyle. Austin, TX has consistently been on the “Top 10 best places to live in the US” for at least ten years, probably closer than 15 years. Texas is in a building boom right now.
It’s OK to not like Perry. I don’t like him either. But to continually bash Texas because it doesn’t fit your view of Utopia is crazy. Whether you like it or not, Texas IS a good place to live for the millions of newcomers who’ve arrived here in the past twenty years or so.
Millions? Really? 99.9% hooking up with that minimum wage American dream?
Probably more like LINUX Admin, Java script programmers, Double E degrees and so on. I guess you haven't noticed that Austin, TX has the highest number of high tech companies in the US, just behind silicon valley.
Sorry, the types of jobs in Texas tend to be high end.
No growth reports - unless U can provide different results - show the major growth of employment in Texass as minimum wage. Show reports of millions of new comers to Texass that have high paying jobs.
So how do you back up your statements about low paying jobs? You don't live in Texas, and you're biased against Texas, so I doubt you'd acknowledge anything positive about Texas.
Do you deny companies and people are relocating to Texas more than anyplace else? (except maybe North Dakota because of the recent oil boom.0 Do you deny that taxes are lower and housing more affordable?
Seems to me you don't like Perry, and by extension you don't like Texas.
U 1st Mr millions of new professional high paying jobs.
Naw, not interested enough to make the effort to look up stats. You'd deny them anyway. You're gonna rag on Texas no matter what. All I care about is correcting your posts about Texas.
Whatever all talk no game. Or is it all talk no truth? Millions of new high tech high pay jobs - WOW - and nothing on the news about it - probably scared that a significant portion of the USA would migrate there - Hey? With all the new bodies and the new sweat generated - well hell that just might break the drought - Hey? ( 5 years now ? or longer )
Hey, I stumbled onto this while reading the local news. I’m not going to do research, but I will respond to your post as I find something.
150 people a day moving into Austin. Not enough homes on the market to fill the need. Wow. I didn’t even know we had that much growth.
http://www.kvue.com/news/consumer/How-does-Austins-housing-market-compare-to-nations-214154781.html
Millions of new high tech high pay jobs? MILLIONS
BTW - kind of a nothing story - where are these people coming from - what is bringing these people to Austin? Millions of NEW High Tech High paying jobs???
Yea, wasn’t much of a story. Still, it shows a lot of people are moving to Texas. I mean if 150 a day are moving to Austin, how many are moving to Dallas, Houston and San Antonio?
I guess it’s good the Texas economy is doing well, but it’s really getting too many people for my taste. I wish they’d stop coming. Maybe if we raised taxes to match New York some would stop coming.
Kinda figured you use that approach. Just ignore the truth. Say anything kind of argument. If you don't how well the Texas economy is doing you haven't been paying attention. I'm done here.
Looking in the mirror as you say that? Mr. Millions of new High Tech High Paying jobs? Fingers typing while you were distracted by your reflection?
You are a real idiot. From the State Comptroller note of 6/20/2013:
"Job growth, sales tax collections and building permits all signal that the Texas economy continues to outpace the national economy.
Texas total nonfarm employment increased by 33,100 jobs during April 2013. Between April 2012 and April 2013, Texas total nonfarm employment increased by 3.0 percent.
Over the past year, Texas added jobs in all of the 11 major industries, including professional and business services, trade, transportation and utilities, leisure and hospitality, construction, education and health services, government, mining and logging, financial activities, other services, manufacturing, and information.
Texas employment fell by more than 422,000 during the recession, reaching its low point in December 2009, but returned to its pre-recession peak in November 2011. By February 2013, the state had added an additional 454,000 jobs. In the U.S. as a whole, only 67 percent of recession-hit jobs were recovered by March 2013.
Texas and the nation returned to economic growth in 2010 and 2011, respectively. In calendar 2012, Texas real gross domestic product grew by 3.2 percent, compared with 2.2 percent for the U.S.
..."Most employment sectors added workers in 2011. Particularly strong were the mining and logging sector (bolstered by oil and natural gas sector industries) that added more than 40,000 jobs and grew by 18.7 percent; professional and business services (53,100 jobs) and leisure and hospitality (41,200 jobs), which chipped in 4.1 percent and 4 percent growth, respectively, and the trade, transportation and utilities sector which added nearly 46,000 workers.
Three sectors saw a decline in employment during 2011: government shed almost 56,000 workers, while the much smaller construction (-6,300) and information (-7,900) sectors reduced workers, too".
Your man Obama could learn something from Texas.
@ [-] 0 points by Cvacca
And U R ???
Hardly millions of new High Tech High paying jobs
And it has been widely report that the most jobs gains have been in minimum wage service jobs.
Yeah - Sure - according to U Texass is a perfect paradise - you should travel more - outside of the south - preferably.
"Hardly millions of new High Tech High paying jobs
And it has been widely report that the most jobs gains have been in minimum wage service jobs."
WRONG AGAIN:
Texas ranks second in the nation in high-tech employment, according to the 15th edition of Cyberstates published by the TechAmerica Foundation.
Texas added 10,000 net tech industry jobs between 2011 and 2012 for a total of 485,600, second behind California. The employment growth was led by computer systems design (7,100) and engineering services (2,100).
Nationally, the U.S. tech industry added 67,400 net jobs in 2012 for a total of 5.95 million, growing at 1.1 percent and representing 5.4 percent of the private-sector workforce. The average U.S. tech wage was $93,800 compared to $47,700 for the average private-sector worker.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2010/jan/28/ronnie-earle/ronnie-earle-says-income-gap-steadily-widening-tex/
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/what-kinds-of-jobs-has-texas-created-under-rick-perry/244279/
And from Texas, itself.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20130312-texas-has-nations-most-minimum-wage-workers.ece
Not a word about a town blowing up, due to lack of regulation either.
When you are growing jobs that means more people are coming to the State so that is not surprising. Interesting that you are quoting from all non governmental publications. So you trust them more than the State of Texas.
Texas has been growing high income jobs as well as overall jobs. Your rookie in the White House is doing neither.
So answer me this, if your regulations are so good where are they now stopping banks from issuing and buying derivatives? Where are they stopping a Treasury bubble? How come you man in DC isn't stopping it. You want control but can't handle it. Why can't you get GDP growth up? Why can't you get unemployment down? How come you regulators didn't stop MF Global? Why can't they stop Snowden. Where are your vaunted people?????
Just to get back on topic, since you endorse all those low wage jobs.
(Keep in mind, that not all states even offer the opportunity to live in a shack in a desert.)
Explain if you would why when unions were attacked to their current state of decline............so did the middle class decline as well?
Keep in mind that as unionization was on the up swing.....so was the middle class.
I do get tired of the constant attempts to changer the subject.
Union membership in the US peaked in 1954 and has been trending down since. Is there a correlation between union membership and middle class prosperity, I am not sure? There appears to be a correlation between union membership and wage rates in specific industries but there also shows a correlation between union membership and lower employment in those specific industries.
Unions are nothing but monopolies and as such can demand price increases. Somebody has to pay for those. Like all big organizations and monopolies they have to continue to grow and change and I think that is what has hurt the unions more than anything else. There are some very dynamic ones now that really understand how to grow their businesses.
Here's where it made you a liar. "Right" up there^, where you mentioned 1954.
So while you ignore all those links I provided for you that PROVE, once again that unions helped make the middle class and their demise has helped destroy it. You just continue a to parrot crap from CATO, or some other idiotic anti-worker, propaganda source.
I am quoting from research done by Cornell University, not the CATO organization while you are quoting from advocacy groups. So do you want a discussion or just hyperbole.
Aside from attempting to drag this further off subject you are incorrect.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2011/04/pdf/unionsmakethemiddleclass.pdf
Even "conservative" estimates say unions peeked in the late 60's.
So yeah, the middle class "curve" follows unions to a T.
Here, perhaps a novel will help you.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/17357-privatized-health-care-union-busting-and-murder-who-could-ask-for-more-in-a-novel
Plus, I'll ask again.
Why would anyone at all want to prevent a successful union program from being implemented?
You are kidding me, you are siting from the Center for American Progress? Do you realize it is a advocacy group?
Here is a quote from research conducted by Cornell University:
"Union membership in the United States has declined significantly in recent decades. The number of union members peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million. In 2003, an estimated 15.8 million workers were union members. As a percent of employed workers, union membership peaked in 1954 at 28.3%. In 2003, 11.5% of employed workers were union members".
Like I said above, a union program is a monopoly so they can demand price power. I have no problems with unions but I don't think collective bargaining is the best as it limits employee's choices.
You're gonna play the hard case, eh? Even though the site you quote made you a liar?
Unions peeked in the 70s, not the 50s as you had previously said, and the middle class peeked and slid right along with the unions.
Here's some more reading for you to ignore.
http://billmoyers.com/2012/07/03/inequality-rises-as-union-numbers-decline/
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib342-unions-inequality-faltering-middle-class/
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/03/147994/unions-income-inequality/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/opinion/nocera-turning-our-backs-on-unions.html?_r=0
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm
http://richardbrenneman.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/chart-of-the-day-income-fall-tracks-union-decline/
http://www.demos.org/data-byte/union-membership-rates-middle-class-incomes
Your final statement is a confused mess, that I have no idea how to address.
It's just wrong, perhaps because it's based on misconceptions?.
.
I am quoting from research conducted by Cornell University - one of the best universities in our country. How does that make me or them a liar? Last time I looked Bill Moyers is a journalist not a researcher.
You don't believe that unions have pricing power?
I can't be an employee with a company that has an union contract without being a member of the union.
U can go away now your crap was old and stale years and years ago.
[Removed]
1st of all Bullshit =
The above words are yours - not mine. I said = "Have you been in a coma for the last 40 years? Line workers that could afford a home and a family back in the early 70's are lucky not to need food stamps and housing aid today."
2nd of all Bullshit - Plain and simple BULLSHIT = your whole comment.
Small dose of reality for ya: The growth of homelessness.
Homelessness in the United States - Wikipedia, the free
Homelessness in the United States is an area of concern for social service providers, government officials, policy professionals, and humanity.[1] The number of homeless people grew in the 1980s, as housing and social service cuts increased and the economy deteriorated. The United States government determined that somewhere between 200,000 and 500,000 Americans were then homeless.[2] There are some U.S. federal programs that designed to help end and prevent homelessness, although there are no homeless-related programs in the Office of Management and Budget.[3]
There were about 643,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons nationwide in January 2009.
1980s
Unbalanced scales.svg The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2012)
The History of the United States (1980–1991) illustrates that this was a time when there was economic distress, high unemployment, and was the period when chronic homelessness became a modern problem. In 1980 federal funds accounted for 22% of big city budgets, but by 1989 the same such aid composed only 6% of urban revenue (part of a larger 60% decrease in federal spending to support local governments).[53] It is largely (although not exclusively) in these urban areas that homelessness became widespread and reached unprecedented numbers.
Most notable were cuts to federal low-income housing programs. An advocacy group claims that Congress halved the budget for public housing and Section 8 (the government's housing voucher subsidization program) and that between the years of 1980 and 1989 HUD's budget authority was reduced from $74 billion to $19 billion.[53] Such alleged changes is claimed to have resulted in an inadequate supply of affordable housing to meet the growing demand of low-income populations. In 1970 there were 300,000 more low-cost rental units (6.5 million) than low-income renter households (6.2 million). By 1985 the advocacy group claimed that the number of low-cost units had fallen to 5.6 million, and the number of low-income renter households had grown to 8.9 million, a disparity of 3.3 million units[54]
The 1980s also saw a continuing trend of deinstitutionalizing mental-health hospitals. It is believed[who?] that a large percentage of these released patients ended up in the homeless system.
Many existing shelters and soup kitchens had to expand their facilities to accommodate the larger number of homeless. For example, in 1980, the Pine Street Inn had to move to larger facilities on Harrison Avenue in Boston[51][52] and in 1984, Saint Francis House had to move its operation from the St. Anthony Shrine on Arch Street to an entire ten-floor building on Boylston Street.[55]
The January 2, 1984 issue of Newsweek magazine had a front cover of the Reynolds family in Galveston, Texas, with the cover title, "Homeless in America", thereby bringing the homelessness issue to continued national attention.
In response to the ensuing homelessness crisis of the 1980s, concerned citizens across the country[who?] demanded that the federal government provide assistance. After many years of advocacy and numerous revisions, President Reagan signed into law the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 1987—this remains the only piece of federal legislation that allocates funding to the direct service of homeless people.
By the mid-1980s, there was also a dramatic increase in family homelessness. Tied into this was an increasing number of impoverished and runaway children, teenagers, and young adults, which created a new sub-stratum of the homeless population.
1990s:
The McKinney-Vento Act paved the way for service providers in the coming years. During the 1990s homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and other supportive services sprouted up in cities and towns across the nation. However, despite these efforts and the dramatic economic growth marked by this decade, homeless numbers remained stubbornly high. It became increasingly apparent that simply providing services to alleviate the symptoms of homelessness (i.e. shelter beds, hot meals, psychiatric counseling, etc.), although needed, were not successful at solving the root causes of homelessness.
2000s
Throughout this decade, homeless service providers and the Federal government have been able to reduce chronic homelessness and homelessness among Veterans with targeted efforts and interagency cooperation on initiatives like the HUD-VASH program.[56] The 2000s, however, saw a new population of those experiencing homelessness: families with children. While an emerging problem at the beginning of the decade,[57] the problem continued to persist through 2010. At the close of the decade the trend continued unabated, with the number of individuals in homeless families increasing from 431,541 in 2007 to 535,447 in 2009.[56]
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
poverty in the United States, including almost 20% of American children,[7] up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993. In 2008, 13.2% (39.8 million) Americans lived in poverty.[8]
In 2011 extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, was double 1996 levels at 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children.[9] This would be roughly 1.2% of the US population in 2011, presuming a mean household size of 2.55 people. In 2011, child poverty reached record high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households, about 35% more than 2007 levels.[10] In 2009 the number of people who were in poverty was approaching 1960s levels that led to the national War on Poverty.[11]
There were about 643,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people nationwide in January 2009. Almost two-thirds stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program and the other third were living on the street, in an abandoned building, or another place not meant for human habitation. About 1.56 million people, or about 0.5% of the U.S. population, used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.[12]
BTW- from fux-spews no less.
Record Number of Americans Receiving Food Stamp Benefits | …
Just because you say it is bull__ doesn't make it so, in fact from the construction and veracity of your past arguments I would judge that you are completely incorrect and partisan.
Homelessness has gotten worse since your man Obama has been in the White House. You voted for him, its all your fault.
Still here shit for brains? Is that because you don't like to go out in public because people who know you know that you're a brain dead idiot?
I love it, you can't respond to the facts so you resort to name calling. Were you bullied as a kid also?
Not the popular kid in class? Please don't go postal on us, there are drugs that can help you.
WELL - THANK YOU EVER SO MUCH FOR TAKING TIME OUT FROM EATING YOUR OWN SHIT AND BARKING AT THE MOON SO AS YOU COULD COMMENT HERE.
Apparently though you have reading comprehension difficulty as Obummer was not in office as pres in the 60's 70's 80's 90's - no not till after the toxic economic meltdown - 2007 beginning of ( toxic meltdown not time in office ) - were you aware of that?
Thanks for the laugh.
BTW - Did U vote 4 mittens?
You must be really dumb, quoting from news sites, blogs or partisan sites is not considered research. If you truly want to debate a topic you might want to get off the internet and really study. But it is obvious from your statements and use of language that you are not well educated.
According to US government statistics, the percent of people in poverty has steadily declined up until 2007/08 and then has steadily gotten worse. Economic growth is a major factor in this number so the economic downturn has affected it. Since Obama has been in office we have gotten below trend growth.
How magnanimous of you to thank me for you feelings. it's touching. However it doesn't solve your problem that the economy is not growing and your ideas are not working.
"Not sure how you are defining worker?" = employees below level of middle management.
Have you been in a coma for the last 40 years? Line workers that could afford a home and a family back in the early 70's are lucky not to need food stamps and housing aid today.
Over the last 40 years - since 1973 -more people have been brought out of poverty since anytime in our history. This includes workers using your definition.
The percent of manufacturing line workers - your words - has been declining due to moving manufacturing offshore so the demand for these workers has declined and hence their compensation has declined.
The decline of the Unions has gone hand-in-hand with the decline of the worker - ALL Workers - Union and non.
Not sure how you are defining worker? Overall more people have been brought out of poverty from the peak of union membership in 1954 since any time in our history.
Census data on Texas vs USA:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html
3% higher poverty rate, 2k less per year median income.
Overall, pretty average. We'll see where they are in 5 years.
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/headlines/20130312-texas-has-nations-most-minimum-wage-workers.ece
Thank you.
Yepperz, and don't forget. that after someone else does all the grunt work, they ship those "tech" jobs off to India.
Or bring in slave labor on a work visa. ( because no one here was qualified - my left nut - F'n assholes ).
Gotta keep those wages down. That's why they HATE this thing in Tennessee.
If we could only make the assholes live what they make others - Hey? Let em try to get bye for a couple of years on minimum wage. Then off-shore their job and tell em - sorry no work for you.
They'll make a movie and call it "Interns"?
Make it look shiny and fun!!!
Already made the movie - kinda - Trading Places or The Prince and the pauper. They likely saw both and failed to understand.
Lived in San Francisco for ten years. Beautiful city, just couldn't afford to live there; and I was making almost a six figure salary. My career involved traveling all over the US for 35 years. Trust me, Texas is a good place to live. Well, maybe the summers are too hot, but you can't have everything.
yep.......they did it on purpose.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23007-evidence-of-gop-interference-in-vw-election-is-now-overwhelming
It's so well after the fact, that as usual, no one will notice.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017186600
You might want to let that one play..........:)
[Removed]
Unlike many around here, he has more than just an inkling about what ALEC has done and is still doing, as well as how it works within the political framework.
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
A German Influence? Workers are strong in Germany.
They don't actively stomp on them there, nor does anyone push for "right to work" BS.
VW, understands how that benefits all parties. The GOP?
Not so much.
The Corp(se)oRATions are insane and their lackeys in government reflect this very well. It's a wonder that those that put them in office can not see the insanity and the fact that they "PEOPLE" are not being represented.
I have pointed out before how they are attempting to "export", such worker damaging legislation.
http://wepartypatriots.com/wp/2013/03/08/canadas-conservative-party-gaining-ground-in-the-fight-to-americanize-labor-conditions-thats-a-bad-thing/
they still are.
Corp(se)oRATions working to rule the world. Funny that there are still people who can not see this.
What you and a lot of you whom have never been involved in "union negociations" don't understand is that it's up to the "employees" not the tea party and not anyone else.
If my presentation about becoming union is better then the tea party or any one else who is against it you will vote for it - that's the way it works.
Now if people are "swayed" it's not because of the union or non union organizers it's because the person chose which way to vote.
Now if you disagree then you are saying they are dumb and stupid and can't make their own minds up.
Where's you presentation?
I'd like to hear it, 'cause there sure isn't one here.
Can I read it in Open Office?
Did you actually write it?
I HAVE been involved in low level negotiations. They are not what you think.
So let's see your anti-union presentation, then we'll talk more.
Alright then tell me - who's decision is to become a "union member" - the people who work for the company or outsiders?
As I stated - it's the people who work for the company who will decide if they want to participate in the union process - they are the ones who will vote on it and they are the ones who will make the final decision.
If the employees voting are swayed by outside sources that changed their mind about voting union then that's their decision - I would think they could think for themselves don't you?
That's not a presentation, nor is it a comment on the events in Tennessee.
Let's see your presentation, then we can talk.
I have no reason to give a presentation because I am not partaking in the Union Organizing Process in Tenn.
As I stated earlier it's going to be the employees decision to vote yea or nay when it comes to becoming organized and that is where the focus needs to be.
Has nothing to do with Republicans, Democrats, Liberals or anyone else who likes or dislikes Unions.
And coercion from management is fine by you??
Because "right to work" is NOTHING, if not coercive legislation.
That's all LIE can be.
So don't give me crap about union dues.
They are effectively meaningless in the face of all money that's been poured against them, INCLUDING POS "right to work: legislation.
Now?
If you don't have a presentation. STFU up about it, please.
Why don't you focus on the subject matter. I never said anything about dues, and never said anything about the "right to work". What I did say is it's up to those who work for the company to vote union or not.
No one, not even you can interfer with that process - The company can't interfer nor can those who don't like unions - they are not going to be the ones going to the voting booth.
So if an employee is persuaded not to vote union then that person has their reasons. If an employee is persuaded to vote union then that person has their reasons. Right to work has nothing to do with it.
BTW, for your info I am a union card carrying member since I started earning a wage, and have been very much involved in "labour law" and the "negociating process dealing with both businesses and unions.
Really?
UAW? Teamsters, AFL-CIO?
The subject matter, is simply that the GOP HATES unions, and is standing in the way of VW unionizing, because they ONLY back "right to work"................THIS. in spite of the fact it's the corporation....VW, that want's the UAW with them.
You're just throwing various red fish at it.
That's the Subject you are trying to change.
Enslavement.
Speaking of unions, how do you feel about the effect Obama's war on coal could have on coal union members?
I don't know. Start the thread.
How about a comment from you on this one?
That they will want their employers to start transition to green power generation in a timely fashion and transfer workers as they ramp up?
Ramp up to what? How can you take a person who works in the mines and transfer them to "green power generation"? Tell us what kind of job can they do?
I don't know - do you? Are you trying to tell me that all fossil fuel workers are illiterate?
Has nothing to do with "illiteracy" and all to do about opportunity within the areas they live in.
Ok lets say they have the opportunity to "learn to install solar panels" do you really think they are going to pick up and move from where they are to another area where they might have a job paying $11.00 hr?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to install solar panels nor does it take a rocket scientists to maintain them.
So your 1st comment was even stupider than it appeared?
Followed up by a lame senario.
I think that if green technology is implemented the people in the areas affected will go there for work - if they already work for the company/business/corp(se)oRATion that is transitioning over to clean energy production - they can put in for a transfer as jobs open-up.
No it takes ordinary people who need a good job and would probably like a healthier work environment as well as a healthy environment.
Are you saying the reason for closing down coal mines is to implement "green technology" in the area where they work?
Are you really serious about your statement that "if green technology is implemented the people in the areas affected will go there for work?
At present there are around 7,000 people working in this industry and people are not going to get a job without proper training.
Secondly the average pay for a person working in the "green energy" industry where solar panels are manufacturered, and installed averages around $12.00 - $19.00 per hr.
So ordinary people who need a good job aren't going to qualify.
What? You telling me there is no housing or other business to convert to green energy? In and around the area of the mines? Where the miners live? No power plants supplying the areas that need to be changed over?
What you don't think that people can be reeducated? Happens all the time right now when a business leaves the state - reeducation retraining for new work. Ever Hear of on the job training? Ever hear of apprenticeship programs?
Wow - I do not know what to say. That last one was really lame - the lame-est? I don't know - as you have been pretty lame all of the way through this conversation/issue.
throw me in the ditch for giving up
Tell you what go talk to the people being affected and see what they have to say then report back. You will be surprised just how off you are when you think these people will be ok because they lost their jobs.
onbama care delayed for jobless health care
Because these people do not realize that there are other jobs that they could be doing to replace living/working in a coal dust choked tunnel underground? Geeze I wonder why a population living under the thumb of Fossil Fuel would not be aware of the alternative possibilities??? HuH.
You're dealing with a piss ant that believes in nothing beyond eating shit.
Thanks GF for a second I thought it might be Me - Silly I know. {:-]) Shell shocked ( shill shocked? ) is my excuse - due to all of the shill activity lately.
That's my story and I'm sticken to it.
come on
let pbs do some real reporting
[Removed]