This explains a lot.

General topics - anything goes within reason, keep it civil.

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby tufluk » Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:47 pm

Bugslayer wrote:Over the last few decades the world has went to hell in a handbasket.....and the GOP had their hand on the handle the entire time! They have ruled pretty much non-stop since the 50s....if things are screwed up, they were the ones in power when it went down....they deserve the blame.


Wrong!!!!!
Since 1949:
Presidency held by Republicans 36 yrs, Democrats 29 yrs. Advantage republican by 7 years, w/ Obama having 3 years left.
Senate controlled by Democrats 47 years, Republicans 18 yrs. Advantage Democrats by 29 years.
House controlled by Democrats 50 yrs, Republicans 15 yrs. Advantage Democrats by 35 years.

During that period, the Democrats had the Presidency, House and Senate, (total control) for 20 years.
During that period, the Republicans had the Presidency, House and Senate, (total control) for 4 years.


Not just wrong, completely wrong! And sooooo easy to check.
User avatar
tufluk
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:08 am
Location: Moline,IL

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby tufluk » Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:57 pm

10up wrote: Really get your name out there. Anybody wanna tell me Tuf's real name? I'd love to see him publicly standing behind his own mouth.


Yet, you are known by a pseudonym. 10up (yours)

There isn't a swinging dick playing disc golf between the QCs and Cedar Rapids who doesn't know me. My avatar is on the tailgate of my truck. You know, the old guy, with the long white hair. And the big smile.

You would have to look far and wide to find a guy more "public" than myself.
And yet, never bitter.

See, the charges that I'm a bad person don't stick BECAUSE people know me. Not because I'm anonymous. The poison you see in my words comes from inside yourself, not from me.
Love, Gene
User avatar
tufluk
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:08 am
Location: Moline,IL

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby irban » Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:32 pm

My favorite stats are those that show the economy performing better under Democrats than under republicans. Showed that the common knowledge that repubs are better for economics, is false. Couldn't track down my post with those links though. Too bad, I'm sure you'd be convinced Tuf. :mrgreen:
~~~- ¥
User avatar
irban
 
Posts: 5231
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:31 am
Location: A State of Minds. (the idiot who thought this was clever is back, did you notice?)

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby tufluk » Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:00 pm

I recall the post. I believe it used the stock market as its standard. I don't dispute it. I'm lapping this market up, with my 401k. While I may have gravy running down the crack of my ass, I play with dozens of young guys just getting by. They don't think we're in the good times.
I don't put too much stock in govt. really running things. The world does what it does, regardless who's in office. Politicians get more credit for good times than they deserve. They get too much blame if things go wrong. I wish govt. would leave me the fvck alone.

In the great scheme of things, money is well down the list of things important. 'Ol Tuf
User avatar
tufluk
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:08 am
Location: Moline,IL

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby Bugslayer » Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:59 pm

The "good times" left when unions were broke and the union members got fat and rich and started to vote GOP and against the very unions that made them :shock: Yes YOU got gravy running down the crack of your as­s, and where did the 401K come from? why isn't there a proud to be union sticker on the tailgate instead of a Tea Party sticker? I have heard the argument before from ex-union members..."I got mine" and forget everyone else....but you owe that money to the old boys who fought to get those bennies, but you make sure by your vote casting that none of these kids will get the same deal!

It is easy to solve Americas problem...tax the millionaires...buy American and support your unions! Like they did in the 40s thru the 70s before Reagan broke the unions. Instead we started to give the "job creators" tax breaks while they were shipping the work overseas to the huge cheap labor markets that Nixon opened up for the fat cats!
A mind is like a parachute.....it doesn't work if it isn't open!

Frank Zappa
Bugslayer
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:11 pm
Location: Sherrard IL.

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby tufluk » Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:39 am

I can explain my theory on the decline of the unions.

They forgot their mission. Workers everywhere care about 4 things. 1. A safe workplace. 2. Good wages. 3. Insurance. 4. Pensions. I have never met a worker who did not agree with having those 4 things. 100%

Then as the years went by, they got tangled up in the "Social Justice" agenda. That's where the fracturing took place. Instead of having their membership agree 100%, they had their membership splintered into 100's of factions. Because a union is just people. Men and women. Some conservative, some liberal. Some religious, some atheist. Hunters, vegans, pro-choice, pro-life, straight, gay, young and old. Yet all agree on the 4 basic principals. They fractured themselves by losing sight of what their membership wanted. Safety, wages, insurance, pensions.

Union officials gave themselves big salaries, 100's of millions of $$$$ to politicians, and crumbs as strike pay to its members. Yes, the unions became just like the corporations they negotiated with. They lost me 25 years ago.

Philosophically, I am unwilling to become a slave of the State in exchange for the promise of a few crumbs from the public coffers.

And my 401k? It came out of my paycheck. While my co-workers were driving newer cars, and living in bigger houses than me, I was putting $$$ away. The UAW didn't ever deposit a single dime into my account. I was an employee of, and paid by John Deere. I was represented by the UAW, and they were paid quite handsomely for their services. Out of my paycheck.

As for the myth that Reagan broke the unions, here is a short, easily checkable history lesson. In 1981, PATCO, the air traffic controllers union, went on strike. They were barred by law from striking. Reagan notified them that the strike was illegal, and gave them 48 hours to return to work. The striker's union boss said, "Stay on strike boys, Reagan's bluffing. He can't fire us all". 48 hours later they no longer had jobs. They never got hired back. Their union boss led them off the cliff like a bunch of lemmings. And still, you blame Reagan for legally doing what he said he'd do.

Below is the minute and a half speech Reagan gave, warning the strikers to return to work in 48 hours. He did not blindside them and fire them without ample warning. Watch and make your own decision.
http://youtu.be/paF5tEaqcVQ
User avatar
tufluk
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:08 am
Location: Moline,IL

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby tufluk » Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:59 am

September 16, 2013
Policy: Labor
Examiner Editorial: Union leaders get rich as membership falls

By Editorial | SEPTEMBER 16, 2013 AT 6:57 AM
Labor unions now represent only 6.6 percent of all private sector jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (AP File) Labor unions now represent only 6.6 percent of all private sector jobs, according to the...
Labor union membership as a percentage of the nation’s overall workforce has been steadily declining from its peak of 35 percent in the 1950s. The result is that unions now represent only 6.6 percent of all private sector jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS data makes it clear that the trend isn’t going to reverse any time soon, either, because unions lost 400,000 members last year as total employment grew by 2.6 million. The only thing keeping Big Labor from becoming an incidental factor in the American workplace is that government employees are five times more likely to be unionized than those in the private sector.

If corporate executives lost market share as dramatically and steadily as the labor chieftains, they would be shown the door or their doors firms would be shuttered. Failure to develop and sell products and services that people want is a surefire way of going out of business. This is what makes free markets the source of the widest range of goods and services for the most people at the lowest cost.

But that’s not the way it works in the highest ranks of Big Labor, as is made clear in an examination of how much the top 100 union leaders were paid last year. A total of 428 private sector union leaders were paid at least $250,000 annually, and the top 100 of those made more than $350,000, according to a study of Department of Labor data by Media Trackers, a conservative, nonprofit investigative watchdog group. The highest-paid union leaders work for organized professional athletes, with G. William Hunter, executive director of the National Basketball Players Association, who received $3.2 million. The only government employee union leader in the top 10 is Gerald McEntee, international president of the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees, whose $1.2 million compensation put him fourth on the list.

The vast majority of the rest of the top-paid union leaders, however, represent blue-collar trade organizations. Joseph Senese, head of the National Production Workers group, made $698,406; Robert Scardeletti, president of the Transportation Communications Union, got $630,053; and John Niccollai, who runs the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 464, received $549,497. Others managing blue-collar unions on the list include Longshoremen’s Association president Harold Daggett at $541,103; William Hite, general president of the Plumbers Union, at $501,203; and Joseph Nigro, the Sheet Metal Workers' general president, at $459,643. All of these men also receive generous benefits and perks in addition to their annual salaries.

These individuals lead many unions represented by the AFL-CIO, whose president, Richard Trumka, led a labor delegation that met privately with President Obama last week to discuss Obamacare. They represent workers covered by multi-employer “Cadillac” health insurance plans that Obamacare taxes heavily. Their unions will get a special exception not available to millions of middle-class Americans when Obamacare takes effect Oct.
User avatar
tufluk
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:08 am
Location: Moline,IL

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby Bugslayer » Tue Sep 17, 2013 9:16 pm

ROTFL Mark Twain once said there are 3 types of lies....Lies, damn lies and statistics! Tuf you use the old GOP method of argument spout a bunch of stats that sound right but under examination never say what you think they say! Guess I am your secretary of explaining stuff!

First off your stat that the union has been shrinking since the 50s is an outright misrepresentation! Union membership kept growing larger and larger until membership was at it's highest in 1979. The stat you are using is the percentage of workforce, it did indeed shrink as America shifted from a war footing, the workforce moved from traditionall manufacturing jobs, to more of the workforce being employed in new small businesses or service and food services which were not unionized. But Union membership was growing steadily year after year until 1983. that percentage of the workforce thing fell every year under GOP presidency but held steady under Democratic rule. It started to drop off until a huge slide in 82 (Reagan broke the Traffic controllers in late 81) coincidence? I think not! Membership has continued to slide due to state legislation outright forbidding unions to operate in the GOP states! It is widely accepted that Reagan broke the unions, and embraced privately by the GOP!

You brought up the amount of money the top ten union leaders make, all in the middle 6 digits, when compared to the men they represent they make up 10 times what the guys make they represent. Union heads are in essence the CEOs of the unions, they handle the negotiations and the major moves. But lets look at the wages and benefits of the top 10 CEOs and compare that to the salaries and bennies that THIER employees make shall we? ten times? try thousands of times more, you're worried about the wrong guys salaries!

Certain facts are undeniable there is a correlation between that when Union membership was strongest, was the exact same time the middle class was the strongest. That as the membership in the unions slid so did the starting wage that most companies were paying, that now as union strength is at an all time low...jobs with good wages and bennies are also? As the unions slid the middle class became poorer and the rich got richer, how do you argue these?

I will use John Deere as a perfect example. When we were young Gene when you got on at Deere you had it made! Good Job, good pay, excellent benefits as you will attest to. But now working at Deere is just another job.... okay pay very little bennies. Many of the employees are temp workers or work thru another company....how did that happen Gene?

We both know that the Deere Union employees took a vote in the 80s...then membership was faced with a quandary...take a bit of a pay cut or a cut in bennies OR sign a deal that kept their wages and bennies at the same rate, but allowed Deere to throw NEW employees under the bus. They make about half as much today with far fewer bennies than the guys did back in the 80s! I would feel your concern for the generation of today a bit more sincere if you were to tell me you voted against that deal! If you, indeed, voted for that deal you showed your concern then as you were "getting yours" and chucking the next generations under the bus. John Deere is making record profits....the leadership is making much larger checks then in the 80s, but the workers are making less then the guys 30 years ago!

over the years I have found myself pushed towards the democrats, while I know some of them have some screwy ideas, I feel they still have a soul.......the GOP has no soul, merely has a price tag
A mind is like a parachute.....it doesn't work if it isn't open!

Frank Zappa
Bugslayer
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:11 pm
Location: Sherrard IL.

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby tufluk » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:51 am

I never did vote for the "2 tiered" wage scale contracts. Gave our local executive board hell for bringing it to the membership.

They should have told guys like me that there was no business plan that would allow a 19 yr old kid (me) to hire in, get paid good money, plus insurance and then at the ripe old age of 49, walk away and get paid for the rest of my life and then for the rest of my widow's life. Plus insurance. It was and is unsustainable. Could have let the "old guys" (Me) earn a bit less, and work a bit longer to keep the deal equal for all. But that wasn't what happened.

They (UAW leaders) had no stomach to get up in front of 2000 guys at a ratification rally and tell the guys that. So they sold the next generation out. Give them half pay, and no pension. They kept insurance.

I voted no, but was in a big minority. (or maybe not, see next)

Case/IH rank and file voted down a 2 tiered contract a year or so later. The International union then had them re-vote. The second vote was held at the Union hall after work hours, not in-plant on company time like the first vote. It was ratified the second time. (Dems would call that "voter suppression")

It was then that I learned when the International UAW brings you a "tentative agreement", it's going to be ratified by hook or by crook.

In the next issue of the UAW magazine SOLIDARITY, the contract was lauded in print as a great victory. No mention of a defeat and re-vote. But I knew it was a fraud. I then began to wonder how many of these "victories" recounted in the magazine were really screwings of the membership.

By then I was as done with the UAW as Col. Kurtz was done with the army. (Apocalypse Now reference)

I took the money and left when my 30 was up. What the hell else was I going to do.

Now, you might say, the UAW didn't sell its membership out, John Deere did. Can't be. Deere as the employer has only a duty to make a profit. The UAW represents its members. Deere can only "sell out" its stockholders and/or customers. Workers can only be "sold out" by the union representing them.

The UAW sold out the young guys then, and I assume that in the future, the UAW will facilitate the young guys returning the favor by selling out the old guys (me) by reducing our retirement in exchange for a bit higher wages. I, for one will not blame the guys.

As for my stats being lies (or damn lies), let's say you have 100 workers, and 30 of them are union members, and 10 years later you have 200 workers and 40 are unionized. You would be correct in saying, "That is an increase of 10 union members". I would also be correct in saying "The percentage of unionized workers has decreased".

So, 2 points: 1. Saying the PERCENTAGE of union workers has declined since the 1950 is a true statement. 2. I am not "worried" about ANY person's salary. I only pointed out union leaders mid 6 to low 7 figure salaries to point out their hypocrisy.

By definition, a hypocrite is someone who rails against something while doing it themselves. Corporate CEOs do not preach against exorbitant salaries. They embrace them. The union bosses bring up CEO pay all the time. Even though they are CEOs themselves. They never mention their own salaries, which the shop floor membership would likely find exorbitant. That is where the union leaders show hypocrisy.

I stand firm in my belief that if unions would get back to a philosophy of "lets represent our membership, focusing on Safety, wages, insurance and pensions", and get away from the "let's mold the world into our vision of a socialist utopia agenda" they'd be far better off.

The average guy says, "What I'm doing now isn't working, I'm going to quit and try something new". A union boss says, "What I'm doing now isn't working, lets do the same thing, only harder". That's what they have been doing for decades, and they wonder why they continue to march toward irrelevancy.

It's no doubt easier for a non-critical thinker to say "It's Reagan's fault", than to look in the mirror and say, "Whoa, maybe it's MY fault".

You might want to think about hiring a "Secretary of 'splainin' stuff" for yourself. (I'm available) :lol:

"There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy, there's only you and me and we just disagree". Dave Mason
User avatar
tufluk
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:08 am
Location: Moline,IL

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby Bugslayer » Wed Sep 18, 2013 12:34 pm

I know you for an honest man....if you say you voted against the 2 tier plan I believe you. But using the percentage of workforce as a signal of the decay of the unions is just playing the numbers to make them say what you want. The fact that as the nation shifted from a war and nation rebuilding status to a peace time workforce of course the % went down...LOL...many a GI went to school and started his own business at that time, small business is rarely unionized or is the food industry or the service industry which was the fastest growing sector in the US at the time. Manufacturing jobs where on the decline which was of course where most of the unions were. The fastest growing sector for the union was civilian employees of the government, but Reagan put the squash on that when he broke the unions ability to strike....their only REAL power.

You sat and watched first hand as the unions power faded, the union is only as strong as the men in it and JD employees were worried about that paycheck! As the power of John Deeres' Union waned so did the starting wages for the new guys, makes my point! At the time it was hard on farmers and farm industry and the cuts may have been needed at the time....but the farmers are rocking now, Deere is posting record profits, so of course they have raised the wages back to previous salaries in the 80s right? The answer is of course no, it is a buyers market with the economy down and they will pay no more than they have to, until the union grows strong enough to bring those wages up, but they can't because they aren't allowed to operate in certain states.....so for the future generations....practice the phrase....would you like fries with that? or get used to working 3 part time jobs so the employers won't have to provide you with insurance like Walmart does

Walmart refuses to pay a working wage to most of it's employees, so who provides them with insurance and food to live?...We do, with our taxes, so the Walton family can make a few million more
A mind is like a parachute.....it doesn't work if it isn't open!

Frank Zappa
Bugslayer
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:11 pm
Location: Sherrard IL.

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby irban » Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:24 pm

covers a lot of points about health care

Oh, and big pharma will continue to develop drugs, even for less than obscene profits.
~~~- ¥
User avatar
irban
 
Posts: 5231
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:31 am
Location: A State of Minds. (the idiot who thought this was clever is back, did you notice?)

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby IHearChains » Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:44 pm

irban wrote:Oh, and big pharma will continue to develop drugs, even for less than obscene profits.


If there is less profit in it, will they develop more drugs, or fewer drugs?
IHearChains
 
Posts: 1006
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 11:09 am
Location: Iowa City

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby Bugslayer » Fri Sep 20, 2013 7:45 am

of course big pharma will continue to pump out their pills! The US is the only market were they bilk us outright, many of the drugs that we way over pay for in the US is available for FAR less in foriegn markets. I still don't understand why the GOP has turned on what was essentially their own idea? They've done it over and over. Any idea that they had and Obama likes now they don't....what should we call these turnarounds?

Should we call what the GOP is doing a One Hatey, do you now hate the ideas because he is democratic or because he is black? If so, should we refer to what the GOP is doing as Blacktracking? Maybe we should just call it the Kenyan Boomerang?
A mind is like a parachute.....it doesn't work if it isn't open!

Frank Zappa
Bugslayer
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 5:11 pm
Location: Sherrard IL.

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby irban » Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:33 am

IHearChains wrote:
irban wrote:Oh, and big pharma will continue to develop drugs, even for less than obscene profits.


If there is less profit in it, will they develop more drugs, or fewer drugs?

If we can't afford the drugs does it matter? The threat of fewer jobs, less innovation, etc. is raised whenever an attempt is made to reign in corporate excess. The point is to balance the good of the few with the good of the many. For instance big oil would love the EPA to go away. And if it did, energy would likely be cheaper. But what are the tradeoffs, now and in the future?
~~~- ¥
User avatar
irban
 
Posts: 5231
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:31 am
Location: A State of Minds. (the idiot who thought this was clever is back, did you notice?)

Re: This explains a lot.

Postby irban » Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:35 am

Bugslayer wrote:....what should we call these turnarounds?
... a One Hatey...Blacktracking...the Kenyan Boomerang?

Particularly like One Hatey. :lol:
~~~- ¥
User avatar
irban
 
Posts: 5231
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:31 am
Location: A State of Minds. (the idiot who thought this was clever is back, did you notice?)

PreviousNext

Return to Stuff

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron