(Close Window)
Topic: Happy Labor Day...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 02:10PM)
To all, but especially Landmark.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 02:17PM)
It's a bit strange, I think, to see anti-labor folks celebrating Labor Day. For those who forgot what the day commemorates:

[quote]Labor Day in the United States is a holiday celebrated on the first Monday in September. It is a celebration of the American labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity, and well-being of their country.

Labor Day was promoted by the Central Labor Union and the Knights of Labor, who organized the first parade in New York City. After the Haymarket Massacre, which occurred in Chicago on May 4, 1886, U.S. President Grover Cleveland feared that commemorating Labor Day on May 1 could become an opportunity to commemorate the affair. Thus, in 1887, it was established as an official holiday in September to support the Labor Day that the Knights favored.[1]

The equivalent holiday in Canada, Labour Day, is also celebrated on the first Monday of September. In many other countries (more than 80 worldwide), "Labour Day" is synonymous with, or linked with, International Workers' Day, which occurs on May 1.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_Day
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 02:43PM)
Next thing you know, atheists will celebrate Christmas, or non-pagans Halloween.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Sep 1, 2014 03:00PM)
No disrespect meant here, but let's face it, I'd wager that [i][b]most[/b][/i] holidays don't mean much of anything anymore to most folks. To wit:

Martin Luther King Day, replaced Lincoln's birthday and most folks I know don't celebebrate anything, just another day off.

President's Day. Do we really think most of the folks really give a *** anymore, except for a day off? Some of us remember when it used be two holidays in February (per above), one for Lincoln and one for Washington. those two are worth celebrating, but somehow Lincoln got lost in the shuffle. BTW, President's day is a misnomer, the Federal holiday is still called Washington's birthday despite that it never falls on his real birthday, February 22nd.

Most folks think of Thanksgiving of Turkey and a four day weekend with their cranky relatives who many wish some would just stay home.

Christmas? Yikes, let's not even go there, what with all the folks who would like to do away with [i][b]this[/b][/i] Christian holiday.

New Year's. Probably the only one without a purpose except to party.

Easter, another Christian killer, though not celebrated as a Federal Holiday.

Memorial Day, a good reason for BBQ for most; I'd bet if the American youth were polled, they wouldn't be able to tell us why Memorial Day is important. And in my experience, few folks can tell us what the difference is between Memorial Day and Veteran's Day.

Fourth of July, same as above. Except for Memorial Day and Veteran's Day.

Labor Day, as in my opening, the end of summer, parties, beaches and BBQs

Then there's Columbus Day, which used to be a holiday, but is no more. I remember in grade school, we would spend a lot of time talking about Columbus Day and America. It was a history lesson. But somewhere along the way we lost that one too.

Oh well, I'm retired so I don't need any reasons except the real ones to celebrate.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 03:01PM)
I posted that in response to your "especially to landmark," who certainly does understand the meaning of the holiday.

Of course Christmas and Halloween commemorate religious and pagan traditions. Labor Day commemorates the real life achievements of the American labor movement.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Sep 1, 2014 03:03PM)
And Memorial Day, Veteran's Day and July Fourth don't celebrate America's freedoms in "real life" and how they were won? How about lives lost?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 03:05PM)
Of course they do! That's exactly my point- we all KNOW what those holidays stand for. But many seem to have forgotten the meaning of Labor Day.
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Sep 1, 2014 03:09PM)
As in all the examples I cited above.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 03:15PM)
True, but I'm sure a lot more people understand the meaning of the 4th of July, Veterans Day and Memorial Day. But I wonder if proponents of anti-labor legislation, who oppose minimum wage and equal pay laws, contemplate the meaning of the day while they enjoy their barbeques.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 1, 2014 03:47PM)
Thanks for the wishes Lobo.

And for those who want to know a little more about the history of labor struggles in the US, a good place to start is with mastermindreader's comment about why the US celebrates Labor Day in September.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 04:00PM)
That's right. And the whole story started here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haymarket_affair
Message: Posted by: Bob1Dog (Sep 1, 2014 04:57PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
True, but I'm sure a lot more people understand the meaning of the 4th of July, Veterans Day and Memorial Day. But I wonder if proponents of anti-labor legislation, who oppose minimum wage and equal pay laws, contemplate the meaning of the day while they enjoy their barbeques. [/quote]

And I'm just as sure that most of the young folks of today don't have a clue about the 4th of July, Memorial Day and Veterans Day, not to mention George Washington and Abe Lincoln, among many others of our great nation.
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 1, 2014 05:04PM)
Happy labor day.

I don't have a clue why the workers like government at all, let alone big government. The government, ain't they the people who got themselves an army to go out and conquer the little people around them and tax all their labor?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 1, 2014 05:07PM)
I had no idea what labor day was and am embarrassed as to what my guess might have been.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 05:11PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I had no idea what labor day was and am embarrassed as to what my guess might have been. [/quote]

Here at NVMS, the show isn't merely entertaining; it's educational, too!
Message: Posted by: Ray Tupper. (Sep 1, 2014 05:12PM)
I thought it was to celebrate the day the American workforce lost the U.
;)
Have a good holiday!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 1, 2014 05:14PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
I had no idea what labor day was and am embarrassed as to what my guess might have been. [/quote]

Here at NVMS, the show isn't merely entertaining; it's educational, too! [/quote]

It sure is. The most entertaining part was me sitting here like a moron and thinking "would Lobo and Bob punk me like that? Is this true?"
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 1, 2014 06:21PM)
Are there really folks on here who are anti-labor??
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 06:33PM)
Mayor Eric Garcetti recently announced a plan to raise minimum wage in Los Angeles by over 50%. We might have to start a new local holiday...nominees are "Inflation Day" and "Unemployment Day."
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 06:47PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, rockwall wrote:
Are there really folks on here who are anti-labor?? [/quote]

There are plenty here who are against unions. (And the word "labor" in the context of this holiday, means unions. It was union strikes for the eight hour work day that marked the beginning of the labor movement and resulted in the first Labor Day.)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 06:50PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Mayor Eric Garcetti recently announced a plan to raise minimum wage in Los Angeles by over 50%. We might have to start a new local holiday...nominees are "Inflation Day" and "Unemployment Day." [/quote]

I doubt it. When the minimum wage was raised here in Washington, there was no effect whatsoever on inflation or unemployment, nor has that been shown to be the case in any other jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 1, 2014 06:50PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, rockwall wrote:
Are there really folks on here who are anti-labor?? [/quote]
As long as it's okay to outsource labor across national boundaries ...
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 06:52PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Mayor Eric Garcetti recently announced a plan to raise minimum wage in Los Angeles by over 50%. We might have to start a new local holiday...nominees are "Inflation Day" and "Unemployment Day." [/quote]

I doubt it. When the minimum wage was raised here in Washington, there was no effect whatsoever on inflation or unemployment, nor has that been shown to be the case in any other jurisdiction that I'm aware of. [/quote]


When was that?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 06:55PM)
January 1st of this year. $9.32.
Message: Posted by: General_Magician (Sep 1, 2014 06:56PM)
Thanks for the Labor Day wishes Lobo. Wife and I went to Vigalentes, a comic book shop that a member in my family owns here in my local area and played Arkham Horror. I had read the rules prior to playing and once we got the hang of the rules while playing, it was actually great fun. Good game and looking forward to playing another game when wife and I get a chance. Met another couple over there as well that was probably a little older than us and they have the game and had touble with the rules of the game. So, they watched my wife and I play for a while to get a better idea of how the game is played and now they are wanting to get a game going with us as well.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 06:59PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
January 1st of this year. $9.32. [/quote]

I wouldn't be surprised if a 1.5% increase in the minimum wage hasn't shown measurable difference in the employment rate is eight months. I'm not sure that analogize swell to a 50% increase in relatively short order.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 1, 2014 07:00PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, rockwall wrote:
Are there really folks on here who are anti-labor?? [/quote]

There are plenty here who are against unions. (And the word "labor" in the context of this holiday, means unions. It was union strikes for the eight hour work day that marked the beginning of the labor movement and resulted in the first Labor Day.) [/quote]

Oh, well then. If you had meant anti-union, you should have said so. Yep, there are indeed a few people against those. In fact, I think that by definition to be pro union would have to be considered 'extremist'.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 07:02PM)
To preempt Balducci, it's actually only a 47.2222% increase that Garcetti is pushing.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 07:03PM)
Read history. Today is a celebration of what organized labor has done for workers, working conditions and this country. (But I have a feeling you knew that.)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 07:07PM)
47.222% over three years, followed by cost of living increases (which would send it over 50% shortly thereafter). By way of comparison, Washington's minimum wage hasn't increased by 47.2% this millennium.
Message: Posted by: imgic (Sep 1, 2014 07:09PM)
In a bit of irony I'm actually doing done work today for a client who's biggest issue is trouble with labor unions...
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 1, 2014 07:13PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Read history. Today is a celebration of what organized labor has done for workers, working conditions and this country. (But I have a feeling you knew that.) [/quote]

Yeah, but you know how people are. They only want to know, "what have you done for me lately?"
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 1, 2014 07:28PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
Read history. Today is a celebration of what organized labor has done for workers, working conditions and this country. (But I have a feeling you knew that.) [/quote]

So where does one look for that union label?
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 1, 2014 07:31PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, rockwall wrote:
Are there really folks on here who are anti-labor?? [/quote]

There are plenty here who are against unions. (And the word "labor" in the context of this holiday, means unions. It was union strikes for the eight hour work day that marked the beginning of the labor movement and resulted in the first Labor Day.) [/quote]

Oh, well then. If you had meant anti-union, you should have said so. Yep, there are indeed a few people against those. In fact, I think that by definition to be pro union would have to be considered 'extremist'. [/quote]
It's Labor Day, rock, not April Fool.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 1, 2014 07:35PM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, landmark wrote:
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, rockwall wrote:
Are there really folks on here who are anti-labor?? [/quote]

There are plenty here who are against unions. (And the word "labor" in the context of this holiday, means unions. It was union strikes for the eight hour work day that marked the beginning of the labor movement and resulted in the first Labor Day.) [/quote]

Oh, well then. If you had meant anti-union, you should have said so. Yep, there are indeed a few people against those. In fact, I think that by definition to be pro union would have to be considered 'extremist'. [/quote]
It's Labor Day, rock, not April Fool. [/quote]


Bazinga!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 1, 2014 08:45PM)
Yes, being pro-union was extreme in the days of the robber barons and the capitalist sweat shop owners who brought us such tragedies as the Triangle Shirt Waist fire in 1911. From that travesty emerged the Ladies Garment Workers Union.

[quote]The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in Manhattan, New York City on March 25, 1911 was the deadliest industrial disaster in the history of the city, and one of the deadliest in U.S. history. The fire caused the deaths of 146 garment workers 123 women and 23 men [1] who died from the fire, smoke inhalation, or falling or jumping to their deaths...

Because the owners had locked the doors to the stairwells and exits, a common practice used to prevent workers from taking unauthorized breaks and pilferage,[6] many of the workers who could not escape the burning building jumped from the eighth, ninth, and tenth floors to the streets below. The fire led to legislation requiring improved factory safety standards and helped spur the growth of the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, which fought for better working conditions for sweatshop workers.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire

Of course there are still those who yearn for those days of unregulated capitalism run amok. And in some states they're making a comeback.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 1, 2014 09:39PM)
I learned from Bob a while back that if a relatively small percentage of the population supports something, it's OK to call it extremist. by definition.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 1, 2014 09:55PM)
You know what? I'm going to correct myself. Apparently, unions have a much higher favor-ability within the US than I realized.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/20/for-american-unions-membership-trails-far-behind-public-support/

"In a Pew Research Center survey conducted in June 2013, about half (51%) of Americans said they had favorable opinions of labor unions, versus 42% who said they had unfavorable opinions about them."

I made the (wrong) assumption that since so few people belong to unions, that less people supported them than do. I suppose, the high percentage is in large part due to those on the left who support unions for everyone else accept themselves.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 1, 2014 10:27PM)
I am deeply grateful to live in a country where labour has the right to organize. I am particularly pleased that the existence of the right has created an economy where the majority of labour does not need to organize.

Happy Labour Day, my friends.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 2, 2014 06:12AM)
In the US, our powerful labor movement was able to get rid of the extra U.
Message: Posted by: RNK (Sep 2, 2014 06:51AM)
[quote]On Sep 1, 2014, imgic wrote:
In a bit of irony I'm actually doing done work today for a client who's biggest issue is trouble with labor unions... [/quote]

My last company to had a lot of trouble with labor unions. They do have some good points but like everything there is bad to. My last company I worked had a job that got shutdown because of the incompetence and laziness of the union workers. See- the workers can be lackluster in their performance when belonging to a union. Because- 1) if they get kicked off the job the union always finds them another one and the worker knows this and 2) you can be a slouch and do half the work of your fellow union workers but still make the same amount of money they do. There is no incentive to work hard because performance does not dictate your pay scale, the contract you signed with the union dictates your pay scale which is the same for all workers whether your and excellent worker or a crappy worker.

RNK
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 2, 2014 01:54PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, landmark wrote:
In the US, our powerful labor movement was able to get rid of the extra U. [/quote]

Prior to corruption the union movement played a HUGE part in the development of this country and in many of the benefits even non union workers enjoy today. Labor unions were necessary at one point and even essential.

Public sector unions however even FDR cautioned against.

The business model has not changed since the 30's and if they want to be relevant they need to change. I think they can still be so they just need to clean house and restructure.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 2, 2014 03:14PM)
I agree with you, Danny. But keep in mind that just as much corruption has existed, and continues to exist, on the management side of the labor/management partnership.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 2, 2014 03:32PM)
Unfortunately 4 million less jobs this year than in 2008 ... depressing really!!! I love Unions .. I hate corruption!
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 2, 2014 03:38PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Unfortunately 4 million less jobs this year than in 2008 ... depressing really!!! I love Unions .. I hate corruption! [/quote]
Are you sure about that?

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/06/investing/may-jobs-report/
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 2, 2014 05:40PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, landmark wrote:
In the US, our powerful labor movement was able to get rid of the extra U. [/quote]

Prior to corruption the union movement played a HUGE part in the development of this country and in many of the benefits even non union workers enjoy today. Labor unions were necessary at one point and even essential.

Public sector unions however even FDR cautioned against.

The business model has not changed since the 30's and if they want to be relevant they need to change. I think they can still be so they just need to clean house and restructure. [/quote]

The U thing was a joke for Magnus's benefit.

Anyway, I agree with you that unions need re-structuring. Though maybe for different reasons. I believe in public service unions. I think police officers, firefighters, teachers all need unions.

Organized crime was allowed to infiltrate some unions in the 50s when the bought off AFL-CIO threw out the communists and socialists who had built the unions. What that did effectively is make the union structures much less democratic. The most effective unions traditionally have been those which were controlled by the rank and file and addressed more than just bread and butter issues, but also took a wider view and helped to build a more democratic, responsive government.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 2, 2014 06:05PM)
FDR was right. No need for public sector unions. Who do they organize against exactly?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (Sep 2, 2014 06:14PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, landmark wrote:
In the US, our powerful labor movement was able to get rid of the extra U. [/quote]

Prior to corruption the union movement played a HUGE part in the development of this country and in many of the benefits even non union workers enjoy today. Labor unions were necessary at one point and even essential.

Public sector unions however even FDR cautioned against.

The business model has not changed since the 30's and if they want to be relevant they need to change. I think they can still be so they just need to clean house and restructure. [/quote]

It looks like we all agree with you Danny! Me too!
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 2, 2014 06:16PM)
Believe it or not I think police officers, among others, deserve adequate pay, conditions, and due process. Those can only be secured and maintained over time with a union. Politicans are happy to ignore contracts if it means they can take that money and transfer into some other pet project. And police officers--yes landmark is saying this--can be thrown under the bus by their superiors without adequate protections.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 2, 2014 06:43PM)
Same with teachers. It's a disgrace in New Jersey, for example, the way Christie diverted money from the teachers' pension fund, despite agreements with the union.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 2, 2014 06:48PM)
No it can be secured without a corrupt bloated burocrscy.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 2, 2014 07:17PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
No it can be secured without a corrupt bloated burocrscy. [/quote]
Agreed. My position is that police officers and other public service workers deserve non-corrupt, non-bloated, democratic, rank and file unions which protect their members. Protections cannot be secured in any other way. If so, I'd like to hear about it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 2, 2014 09:06PM)
Http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/18/the-first-blow-against-public-employees/fdr-warned-us-about-public-sector-unions
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 3, 2014 02:24AM)
Not surprising that the NY Times would print such nonsense. The Times, despite what you might think, has never supported labor unions.

All the opinion piece does is to repeat the FDR quote and a 1959 AFL-CIO position. As I intimated above the AFL-CIO has often taken anti-rank and file labor positions.
Besides that, the only other point the author makes is the absurdly false statement that union contracts make it next to impossible to reward excellent teachers or fire failing ones.

Your supervisor on the police force fires you because he doesn't like Irishmen, so he says you're incompetent. Do you think you have a right to challenge that? Good luck without a union.

Your supervisor on the police force fires you because he says you used unnecessary force and shot someone, and there is political pressure on him to fire the cop who did it, do you think you have the right to a fair hearing and an investigation? Good luck without a union.

Your supervisor decides it's a good idea to change your shift rotation or assignment every three days, because he has the hots for your wife who turned him down. Do you think police officers have right to protest that? Good luck without a union.

You know what I'm saying is not just hypothetical...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 3, 2014 08:28AM)
It is hypothetical. Unions exist.
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 3, 2014 08:29AM)
Those kinds of things happen far less often where there are unions in place. Not hypothetical.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 3, 2014 08:54AM)
With no comparison without unions it is by definition hypothetical.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 3, 2014 09:10AM)
This isn't hypothetical-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/08/27/747751/camden-police-layoffs/
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 3, 2014 09:17AM)
First off a huge political agenda from the source.

Second of all if more police are on the street it is good right? I noticed how the only complaint they has was one of union busting. Not saying coverage will be worse.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 3, 2014 09:29AM)
What is happening in Camden, Danny, has been reported in every newspaper in New Jersey, as well as by Fox news.

The Christie administration has attacked all teacher and police unions in New Jersey.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 3, 2014 09:30AM)
So now Fox is a credible news source all if the sudden?

And more cops is bad how?

And none of this changes that FDR was right about public sector unions.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 3, 2014 09:35AM)
My point, OBVIOUSLY, is that when sources across the board all report the same thing, it can be safely assumed that the event did, in fact, happen.

And more cops is NOT bad. The problem is that Christie has substantially CUT the total number of police in the city with the biggest crime problem.

Keep in mind that this is the same governor who diverted Hurricane Sandy relief funds to produce campaign commercials featuring him and his family.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 3, 2014 09:38AM)
For many sources reporting see the war of the worlds. Worse yet WMD in Iraq.

Should a municipality go bankrupt to pay union dues?

I get your greater point. Everything a republican doors is evil.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 3, 2014 09:41AM)
That's not exactly what was happening in Camden.

But I was responding to your point that it's hypothetical to talk about cities without police unions, as if no such cities exist. They do, and they have serious problems.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 3, 2014 09:53AM)
No. They have a union that is the problem or more to the point at issue not a problem.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 3, 2014 10:05AM)
[quote]On Sep 3, 2014, mastermindreader wrote:
My point, OBVIOUSLY, is that when sources across the board all report the same thing, it can be safely assumed that the event did, in fact, happen.

And more cops is NOT bad. The problem is that Christie has substantially CUT the total number of police in the city with the biggest crime problem.

Keep in mind that this is the same governor who diverted Hurricane Sandy relief funds to produce campaign commercials featuring him and his family. [/quote]


They'd love him in Ferguson!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 3, 2014 10:06AM)
That sentence has me thoroughly confused. Are you saying the union is the problem or not a problem?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 3, 2014 10:13AM)
An issue. Problem is the wrong word really. The union is what is at issue
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (Sep 3, 2014 10:16AM)
I agree that it is one of the claimed issues. But since, according to your earlier post, no news source can be believed, how could we possibly know that the issues REALLY are? :eek:
Message: Posted by: landmark (Sep 3, 2014 11:03AM)
[quote]On Sep 3, 2014, Dannydoyle wrote:
With no comparison without unions it is by definition hypothetical. [/quote]
Unions didn't exist since the dawn of time. People had to fight for them. It's not hard to compare pre- and post- union conditions for members.
And of course there are lots of places without teachers' unions. Plenty of comparisons to be made there as well. Stuff happens every day. Not hypothetical.
http://www.businessinsidler.com/states-where-teachers-unions-are-illegal-2011-2
Message: Posted by: tommy (Sep 3, 2014 01:08PM)
Unions have existed since the dawn of time according to the birds and the bees.
Message: Posted by: Slim King (Sep 3, 2014 02:49PM)
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, balducci wrote:
[quote]On Sep 2, 2014, Slim King wrote:
Unfortunately 4 million less jobs this year than in 2008 ... depressing really!!! I love Unions .. I hate corruption! [/quote]
Are you sure about that?

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/06/investing/may-jobs-report/ [/quote]
FOUR million less FULL TIME JOBS ... I'm positive!