In our first report, we saw that the Republican effort to put a clown in the White House to balance out when they accidentally got a good Republican elected. This is to further show how the Right's mantra of "less government" was furthered by planting either an idiot or a greaseball on their ticket.
This started with Warren Harding. After the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, the Republicans knew they needed a real do nothing clown in the White House to do nothing so they could start ruining the economy. Harding was best know for poker and making out in cramped spaces. Republicans were safe in knowing that his peccadilloes would occupy him while they were laying the seeds for the Great Depression. But Harding was also an affable guy. He pardoned Eugene Debs and did some other stuff that would tick off the right. Knowing this, the Republicans put "Silent" Calvin Coolidge on the ticket with Harding. This was, at least they knew the number two guy would be of service to them in case Harding went and did something like pardon Eugene Debs.
The strategy worked for the silent leaders of the Republican Party when Harding died in office. They had their man, Silent Cal, who would look the other way whilst the Great Depression loomed. No regulation and buying on margin would look good for a while so the real fatcats fattened up on the largess of no government looking out for the little guy.
After c Coolidge finished his second term, the Republicans figured it didn't matter if they had the usual clown or somebody with talent at the top because things were screwed up so much to their liking that nobody could have stopped them. Herbert Hoover may be remembered in a bad light. Hoovervilles and all. But he was a pretty decent guy in reality. A hero in Europe for getting Europeans fed after WWI. But the shit hit the fan on in 1929 and Hoover was impotent.
The Republicans knew they would just have to cool their heels, and eventually find a good candidate instead of a clown to run for president when the Country finally forgot what their policies of less led to.
They found their man in Dwight D. Eisenhower. A great American. Everybody liked Ike. Poor Adlai Stevenson never had a chance. But just to be sure the greaseball factor was honored, the Republicans put the notoriously greasy Richard Milhouse Nixon on the ticket with Ike. Tradition was preserved.
1968 brought perhaps the greasiest Republican ticket ever, rivaled only by Bush/Cheney. Nixon was greasy, but real smart. The Republicans don't trust anyone that's too smart so they put Spiro Agnew on the ticket with Nixon. Although Agnew had some positive aspects, he fought racism, he was kind of like the Sarah Palin without breasts of his time. We all knew he wasn't up to the job, but he thought he was. Nixon and Agnew both lived up to their greaseballness by leaving their offices in disgrace.
Gerald Ford screwed the Republicans. He was a decent and pretty sharp guy and had a decent and pretty sharp guy as his running mate. The Republicans knew the economy was going to hell in 1976, so rather than take a chance and elect Ford, which would cost them the White House for a long time, like when Hoover lost, they said screw this and we got the smart and affable, but sadly ineffective Jimmy Carter.
The Republicans had their ace in the hole though. The eternally over rated intellectually and presidentially Ronald Reagan. But he made us feel good. I guess that's something. Reagan blessed the Republicans by giving us silly stuff like "voluntary compliance." That worked. I always thought Reagan may have ticked off the Right because George Bush I was a pretty well qualified guy. But the Republicans felt Reagan was sufficiently Coolidge like so it didn't matter who his running mate was as long as Reagan didn't die. Imagine the amount of pant shitting the high level Republicans did when that creep tried to assassinate President Reagan.
George Bush I was an interesting story and offers more proof of my premise of the greaseball and/or idiot factor of Republican presidential politics. Dan Quayle. They made absolutely sure an idiot was on the ticket.
Of course, the idiot factor proved an undoing when Clinton defeated Bush in 1992. Quayle had four years to show he was anything but an idiot. America just couldn't take a chance on Bush I not surviving his second term. The idiot placement plot failed the Republicans finally.
They made up for it in 2000. They found the biggest idiot of them all in George W. Bush. And just to be sure all their bases were covered, the Republicans got the greasiest guy they could find outside of Tookie Williams to be his Vice President. And to the joy of supply side right wing fools everywhere, these two left our government and our Country in shambles.
71 comments:
"by planting either an idiot or a greaseball on their ticket."
Idiot or Greaseballs? You know damn well that the word Greaseball is a dirty ethnic slurs against Italians!
And YOU talk about inciting and instigating?
How would you like it if I said Obama filled his administration with "coons"? (sorry to use that world, just did it as an example)
You wouldn't and I wouldn't blame you.
So why use that term?
Unless your agenda was to start trouble
And you said Atlas Shrugged was long ...........
I stopped reading at "Republican blah blah Bush blame Bush blah blah "
Do me a favor and read today's Washington Times OPINION SECTION by Andrew Breitbart
It touches on the Pa Pool and racism .
Great article written by a "Republican"
Huh. I figured more idiots would be outraged at the identifying of idiots being put on the Republican presidential tickets. I wouldn't want to be called a "Dan Quayle" either. Or a "Tookie" for that matter.
Thank you all so much for stopping by.
I'm sick and tired of all the Liberal abuse, when I pointed out how horribely the Obama girls especially Malia, are being dressed...did you get a gander at the little one, when they were all leaving Italy? She looks 20 years old! I post on Fox and Friends facebook...
I know I am right..some of those people have no couth.
There is no way to save her...they will indoctrinate her, to be used to recruite young children, to Obama's kids...
she will be the spokesperson, for Hitler/Obama's kids.
And this blog only goes further to prove my point.
What an infantile blog you wrote!
My only comment to it is that your head is so far up your ass that you can read the expiration date on your spleen.
me,myself,andI
We have been saying that to truth for years .
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/13/racisms-cure-found-in-private-sector/?feat=home_headlines
Just copy that link and read it .
The update now is the pool is inviting the KIDS back .
Me, Myself, And I said...
What an infantile blog you wrote!
My only comment to it is that your head is so far up your ass that you can read the expiration date on your spleen.
I visited M,M,and I's blog and found this as a description of it:
"This is a blog about my thoughts and views. Please enjoy yourself here and take the time to write a comment."
May I just make an observation?
No one dragged Me, Myself, and I to this blog to read it; she came of her own free will.
But instead of reading and leaving, she felt compelled to be exceedingly rude to TRUTH 101.
TRUTH 101 doesn't, by any means, need me to defend him or his blog. I merely point out the bad behavior of some of his visitors.
BTW, IHTSI, I am first generation Italian, and did not take "greaseball" as a personal insult. That term also means someone who is venal and on the take, as Spiro Agnew most definitely was.
You two are outraged because Truth 101 exposed another dirty right wing secret. I know you must feel terrible at having been duped. I feel bad that President Obama is not embracing my single payer health insurance plan. And that we still have Troops in Iraq. And that the Illinois State Legislature is putting off voting for a tax increase to get my state out of it's 11 billion dollar hole left by Republican George Ryan. And nothing was done by Democrat Rod Blagojevich to fix it because he also is a (Forgive me IHTSI) greaseball.
But we can still thank God that we live in the greatest Nation in the universe. (If you're an atheist then in the interest of open minded liberalism, I also thank chance and evolution.)
Truth, in response to the comment you left on my blog... I didn't tell you not to go there, trust me I can take anything that you can dish out.
What I did say is that I won't play your games.
If I comment on your blog, I would expect you to reply here, be my guest.
If you read my blog and wish to throw mud at me, go ahead.. I'm not afraid to reply in kind.
I know how to reciprocate.
When I visit your site I will be respectful of your property Wordsmith. Nobody hates the ignominy of having his comments deleted more than I do.
Tookie,
Read the article and sadly racism does occur on a daily basis like it did at this private swim club...
Now, we may be able to right the wrongs faster now than we did in the past but it does not in any way allow anyone to claim that racism does not exist any longer...
Shaw said:
"BTW, IHTSI, I am first generation Italian, and did not take "greaseball" as a personal insult. That term also means someone who is venal and on the take, as Spiro Agnew most definitely was."
Well Shaw, I'm also Italian and I don't appreciate anyone using the term "greaseball" unless it's made by a fellow Italian in jest.
It can be used either intended to be taken as mockery or humor. I didn't see any humor in Truth101's using it.
Just like blacks call each other the "N" word, but they don't care for whites to use it.
And by the way, I don't.
Your political acumen is obvious, and you highlight it by insulting Italians.
You may attempt to spread division with your slurs, but your diminutive attempts will fail when insulting the descendants of Dante and Puccini.
You are pathetic.
I wonder if I shouls give the Oscar to IHTSI for his imagined outrage at the word "greaseball."
Tell you what pal. Just to even us up on the lineage side, my Mom was Irish and my Dad is Swedish. If you want to call me a liberal drinking meatball eater I will remain silent and take it with the same stoic response to pain as The Italian Stallion, Rocky Balboa.
Thank you for visiting and thank you for veal parmesagne.
Grazie, Zio. The ethic slur is the basest and most desperate form of argument. It certainly discounts anything said in his less-than-informed post.
Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of neocons demanding that Truth be politically correct!
I look around for neocons here. Have any chimed in yet?
I would have guessed that greaseball was a slur against Latinos, if it was any slur at all. But I read it, and it did not occur to me that it was an ethnic slur. But according to dictionary sources, it is one. I guess my vocabulary has been expanded by that word today. Not that I needed it.
Truth said: "feel bad that President Obama is not embracing my single payer health insurance plan."
It's great that he is not pushing for such a monopoly.
"And that we still have Troops in Iraq."
Good idea too. They should not come home until the rest of the terrorists have been defeated.
"And that the Illinois State Legislature is putting off voting for a tax increase to get my state out of it's 11 billion dollar hole left by Republican George Ryan."
I hope they put it off until the year 2525. Illinois, which already has overhigh tax rates, does not need to make the problem worse and wreck the economy further and drive residents out with more overtaxation. Why don't they cut waste instead?
Show me the waste Dmarks. Is funding prisons to keep greaseballs of all ethnicity off the streets a waste? Is properly funding social services to rescue children from greaseball parents and guardians of all ethnicity waste? Are all the economic development funds that help entrepreneurs start businesses and create jobs a waste?
I don't doubt there is some waste. Find 11 billion dollars of it. Or 36 billion dollars worth in California.
My premise and belief is that it is this generations responsibilty to pay it's own bills. Reagn raised taxes. Bush I raised taxes. Every Republican governor in Illinois since I moved here raised taxes.
I would think we would be in agreement on our generation paying it's bills.
Thanks for the visit.
TRUTH 101 wrote:
"Thank you for visiting and thank you for veal parmesagne."
Amico mio! I think you have just coined a neologism, or better yet, a portmanteau!
You've inadvertently combined parmigiano [parmesean cheese] with "agne," which is the ending of "lasagne," the plural of "lasagna" in Italian.
I guess your new word "parmesagne" would describe a pasta dish--lasagna noodles smothered in parmigian cheese: hence: parmesagna (singular) parmesagne (plural).
Congratulations. I may suggest the local restaurants here in Boston's Italian North End put this promising dish on their menu and give proper credit to TRUTH 101.
parmesagne alla VERO cent'uno
(Parmesean cheese and noodles in the style of TRUTH 101)
Looking back, I should have thanked him for Olive Garden. Oh well.
Please take note righties that Shaw made sport of one of my spelling errors as well.
What did you expect from an Irish Swede anyway? I went to Boston while visiting my Mom's family. We saw the Old North Church. The Constitution and other cool patriotic stuff. We went to a fine Italian eatery. I ordered a hamburger and fries.
TAO said...
Nothing funnier than watching a bunch of neocons demanding that Truth be politically correct!
well then I guess you Libs won't mind me calling you a coon!
Go ahead and sign in next time you have what you most likely think is a clever comment VFR guy. I'm sure the world would like to know there are not more shitheads like you running loose.
To call someone, anyone a greaseball in inappropriate And YOU know it.
And so do you Shaw.
You know what I'm gonna do? I'm gonna get out of here before I say something that I'll regret later.
Could you please address IHTSI's comment Shaw? As a fellow member of the insensitive male sex, I don't think I could offer him anything that would soothe his hurt feelings. I hate for anyone to leave angry.
IHTSI...
Having read quite a few of your comments all over the blog trust me IHTSI you are well beyond the point of saying something you might regret later...
You have said more than enough in the past to regret and that is one slippery slope you don't have to worry about anymore...
VFR...call me a coon, call me anything you want...you and your brethern have called me a lot worse in the last couple of weeks...
Here's the Urban Dictionary's definition of greaseball.
And the Free Dictionary online:
Noun 1. greaseball - (ethnic slur) offensive term for a person of Italian descent
Merriam-Webster online:
grease·ball
Function: noun
Date: circa 1922
usually offensive : a person of Hispanic or Mediterranean descent
My Italian family used the term to describe uneducated, crude, backward Italians. And we only used it among ourselves, never to anyone's face.
It is considered an insult to call and Italian and/or Latino a greaseball.
TRUTH 101 did not do that.
He used it to describe a corrupt politician, therefore, I don't believe he insulted anyone except Spiro Agnew, Nixon, and other honesty-challenged politicians.
No Italians were harmed in the use of the word "greaseball."
As I said, I'm first generation Italian, both parents were born in Italy, and I did not take offense at TRUTH calling a dishonest politician a greaseball.
I think P.C. sucks dog balls . As for Truth's dish o' crap ...sounds like crap .
To my fellow Republicans
GROW A SET
Lordy your letting TRUTH push you around ?
Shaw Kenawe said...
" Here's the Urban Dictionary's definition of greaseball."
Shaw, forget the Urban Dictionary's definition, we all know what it means!
TOOKIE said...
" I think P.C. sucks dog balls . As for Truth's dish o' crap ...sounds like crap .
To my fellow Republicans
GROW A SET
Lordy your letting TRUTH push you around ?"
Nobody's pushing me around, I just don't want to take his or anyone else's crap.
Then remind him he is a welfare queen of the dumboturd party in the 3rd worst state in the Union.
There is zero excuse letting libtards push you around . They are libtards because they are either stupid or party of the "entitled class" of public servants .
Oh, Tookie, why do you sound like some ex military guy from Texas?
How dare you question the manhood of the righties that visit Tookie! You are obviously a homophobe. I am outraged! OUTRAGED! Shame on you for your despicable innuendo denigrating gays. You can deny it but we all know what you meant.
Truth,
Your thesis is interesting but regrettable. I have long held the opinion that presidents are victims of their circumstances.
The measure of greatness is their ability to transcend politics and react in a positive way to those circumstances and make judgements that rise above politics within the extent of his power to act unilaterally.
Having said that, when it's all said and done presidents are subject to what congress pulls out of its ...hat and what the Supreme Court will allow to stand.
I tell my students that the president is like a quarterback in football. He gets too much credit when the team wins and too much blame when it loses. It's a team game and so is government.
We have trouble naming our own congresspeople and certainly we know few of the other states' reps. The sad truth is that most of the people in congress care more about their own reelection than they do about the what's good for the country.
The president can veto, but he is subject to an override. A delicate dance for sure. Congress was comfortable with Coolidge.
The Gilded Age presidents were comfortable with a strong congress. As for Grant, his alcoholism was greatly exaggerated. You would have been more accurate had you called him a lightweight who couldn't hold his alcohol. There is no record of him having failed to perform his duties because of drunkeness. He was more the victim of bad press.
In fact, he was considered to be the finest horseman in the whole Army. Of course, that could have been the result of drunk riding.
I appreciate the thought you put into your posts. Well done. I just disagree with your thesis.
Good day, sir.
Truth asked: "Show me the waste Dmarks"
Here is an example of greed at work: http://www.wqad.com/news/wqad-pay-raise-state-workers062609,0,4887741.story. Demanding money that the state does not even have.
There is a lot of waste like this. It all adds up. Greedy public "servants" out to soak the public for as much as they can.
Well, Truth you are up to a couple of hundred comments a week!
Oh, and the 'righties' claim they want debate! Looks to me like they love the mudfests!
Keep up the good work! You have a heavy load and I admire you for the service that you provide society!
Nice presidential history of the last century, Truth.
When did all these big, strong Republicans become so PC and such victims, though?
Read that Dmarks. In the interest of kindness to you, I'll give you a chance to take that silly link down before a well deserved savaging.
Screw that. Social services have been cut. The number of case workers has been cut increasing the already overstretched workload of these workers. So now you begrudge them a measely 3.5 percent raise. They were lucky if that kept up with their health insurance costs for family. And I have zero doubt when the number of children being abused goes up, you will be at the forefront crying for government to invest in more social workers to prevent these atrocities.
There is no doubt that people are struggling. But as Republicans like to point out when they're at the helm, "Hey. Unemployment is 10%. That means the rest of you have jobs. So it's not that bad. Is it?"
That's why I don't have a problem with my taxes being raised so our social services have the resources and manpower to protect our kids. Our roads and highways are being maintained properly.
Illinois budget is arount 68 billion dollars. Yes I'm sure you can find some waste. You can find waste in any budget. The deficit is 11 billion. Find 11 billion dollars Dmarks of spending that is of no benefit. The state is about to lay off 2,600 workers. I'll grant that there are most likely a few that are dead weight. But not all 2,600. These include parole officers. State Troopers. Prison guards. Are the people that keep work to keep our highways safe and creeps behind bars a waste?
Governor Quinn asked for a 1.5% tax increase. In my case thats around $12 a week. I would be more than happy to pay the $12 more dollars to keep creeps safely behind bars. Know that if I have trouble on the highway a Trooper is just a few minutes away. And kids with nowhere to turn have people looking out for them.
Law and Order Teacher: It is no secret to the masses that I have tremendous respect for your intellect. Open mindedness and rational thought process. Should anyone here disrespect you in any way he/she will be summarily pummelled with my acerbic wit and face deletion.
That being said, you are also a party pooper.
Thank you for visiting.
TAO: I would give you the same reverential reply I gave LaOT but you strike me as a man that appreciates results over having his ass kissed. I shall strive even harder to earn your continued respect.
ExDLB: You sir, are as fine a blogger and intellect as has ever blogged. If your donuts are as good as your blogging I have no doubt great riches will soon be yours.
You have all enriched this site. I am both proud and humbled that you choose to read Truth Shall Rule.
Truth: It's not a silly link. It's a perfect example of government workers getting fat and sassy on the government dime, wasting money that can be used instead on important social services. Or, since you mentioned manpower was a concern, the money for this raise could instead by used to hire new workers.
With state services to the poor being cut, it is irresponsible for the state to waste money like this, and greedy for the state workers to demand it.
"So now you begrudge them a measely 3.5 percent raise"
All waste spending should be looked at. If these state workers will stay on the job without this raise, then it is entirely unnecessary. I DO begrudge them this raise when the state is in the hole, and services to truly needy people are being cut.
And by the way, the money from this "measely" wage could be used instead to hire or retain 800 state troopers, or 800 social workers, or lift over a thousand Illinois families out poverty. That would be what would happen if the priorities were on serving the public instead of making fat wallets fatter.
"Measely" is quite a good word you chose for the salary increase. It's a measely 3.5% when applied thusly as overpay for well-paid people. But the exact same amount of money is far from measely if it is directed in better ways.
"Know that if I have trouble on the highway a Trooper is just a few minutes away"
This would happen if the money wasted in 3.5% raise in the article I linked to were directed instead to retaining or hiring state troopers.
As for the state troopers, we have the same situation in Michigan. The governor refuses to cut obvious waste, but has cut services to the poor, and state troopers. In Michigan, we have a "prevailing wage" act which forces significant waste and overpay on state contracts. Our budget is smaller than in Illinois. I wonder what the savings would be in Illinois if this kind of contract fraud were stopped.
I also checked into the other end of Illinois waste spending on state government salaries. Particularly, those who are getting rich at state expense. There are thousands of state employees in Illinois pulling in over $100,000 a year salary. The king of them all is making a $1,000,000 state salary. There's room for plenty of savings here.
Cut this flagrant waste first before raising taxes. Doing this will make the debt hole smaller.
Many of the employees you think are overpaid make that kind of money because they are professionals, nurses, pharmacists, engineers, etc. who work in agencies that had hiring freezes and are woefully understaffed. They have mandatory overtime heaped on them. The money is nice. But what we have are overworked, stressed out employees Dmarks.
I can't argue that all employees are compensated fairly because there are many examples that make you say WTF? when looking at their rates. But certainly not 11 billion dollars worth.
The million dollar employee is probably an instructor or department head at one of our university's schools of medicine. I don't know about you Dmarks, but I think training doctors to save lives is pretty important. If it takes a million dollars to get a person that can teach people to be great doctors then that's okay with me. Especially if that's one of my kids on the operating table.
We also have a prevailing wage law. I have no problem with my tax dollars supporting good jobs with fair wages and benefits.
There is nobody in this great Country that hasn't said at least a thousand times over his lifetime "Government needs to do something about this!" But when it does, God forbid government ask us to pay for it.
Find this 11 billion dollars Dmarks. Find half of it.
"The money is nice."
It's a lot nicer when it goes to necessary state services which would otherwise be savagely cut or eliminated.
"If it takes a million dollars to get a person that can teach people to be great doctors then that's okay with me"
Actually.... the one millionaire-on-the-state-dole is a football coach.
""Government needs to do something about this!" But when it does, God forbid government ask us to pay for it."
Giving mad-money to already well-paid government employees is typically not a problem that people demand "government do something about this!"
"We also have a prevailing wage law. I have no problem with my tax dollars supporting good jobs with fair wages and benefits."
The prevailing wage law ensures overpay in contracts to companies that don't offer the best deal. With the debt problem, the state should not waste money on bad contracts. In Michigan, the waste on this is $100 million. With Illinois' much larger budget, it is probably several times larger in that state. A fair wage is the real value of the work. "Prevailing wage" demands an inflated value, above the real value.
I have a problem with tax dollars going to make the well-off even richer when the money should instead be used on police protection, services to the poor, etc. It's a matter of different priorities. Should government "help itself", or help the public?
Sorry, overpaying on bad contracts should not be a priority.
As for the 11 billion, getting rid of overpay and prevailing wage would probably save only a couple billion. Without damaging state services at all. In Michigan, there's plenty of savings to be gained from cutting many boondoggles (such as the $100 million state police post that the state police do not even want). No doubt there are many of these also in Illinois. Do the tax hike only after this obvious waste is cut.
What you consider waste may be vital to the child that needs help Dmarks. I need to know what you think a fair wage is before going further with wage discussion.
A fair wage in such situations is the meeting point between the demands of each employee and of the employer. Once each individual agrees on something, and neither walks away.
This fits in with wise, efficient government goals of paying no more than necessary to get necessary services done.
As for the "child that needs help", I'd rather see money go to services for poor families than to wasting it on that "measely" 3.5% wage increase to well-off state employees.
Instead of 800 new state troopers (which I mentioned earlier), such money can be used for social workers, teachers (to reduce classroom size) or any combination thereof.
That sure helps children a lot more than giving some state employee making $42,000 a year a $1,470 raise.
Back to Illinois having a tax hike, I'd be a lot more accepting of it if the government fixed things like this. Instead of having the government flagrantly waste money and then demand more.
I point to your statement here Dmarks:
" fair wage in such situations is the meeting point between the demands of each employee and of the employer. Once each individual agrees on something, and neither walks away"
So you support bargaining. Most of these employees are in Unions that bargained for these wages and benefits.
Your previous statement contradicts what you say in regards to the employee raises.
You say you want the state to "cut waste" before raising taxes. But what may be waste to you may be of vital importance to the next person. Besides, my state is about to fire 2,600 employees. You said your state is cutting things you consider important and ignoring waste.
Let's look at the biggest expense the state, any employer, has. Employees. You can put off buying twenty police cars and save $400,000 this year. You can stop buying pens and pencils and save $10,000. It all adds up to barely a drop in the bucket. One employee making $40,000 plus benefits is probably around 60 to $65,000.
You tell me that the employees should take cuts to save jobs. Don't worry. They will when the time comes.
Our states and our Nation have lived well off borrowed money for a long time. I am glad to live up to the personal responsibility touted so much by the Republicans and pay fore the services my state and Nation provide through a higher tax bill. We all benefitted from the rampant deficit spending. Let's do the right thing and pay for what we got instead of putting that on our kids.
"But what may be waste to you may be of vital importance to the next person"
This "next person" has misplaced priorities and a poor attitude as a "public servant". As someone a $42,000 a year government employee wanting a a $1,500 raise regardless of the cuts to vital services necessary to pay for it.
I did not contradict anything. Illinois government workers being forced into unions and "Bargaining" against their will is another subject.
Do we agree, though, that a million dollar a year football coach is excessive in the light of the state deficit and service cuts?
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/3720/spankinganimation8xk2.gif
If the Illini would have won a national title and enjoyed the revenue from that, yes, the football coach would be worth a million dollars a year. The Illini coach hasn't proven his worth.
You contradict yourself again Dmarks. In one statement you are pro bargaining. In the next you are pro scab. "I did not contradict anything. Illinois government workers being forced into unions and "Bargaining" against their will is another subject."
I don't know which workers that make $42,000 a year you think arev overpaid so I can't defend or agree with you on that matter. To simply blanket them all as overpaid is not fair to the workers or the argument.
"Scab" is a juvenile insult for people whose only crime is wanting to work for a living and to fill employment positions that others have abandoned. The use of "scab" by the union movement only shows how anti-worker they are.
I am pro-bargaining as long as each worker chooses the bargaining situation. Based on the workers' needs. Workers first, not union bosses first. I am opposed to unions forcing workers into bargaining units against their will. Let the workers choose. That is true employee free choice.
As for those state workers being overpaid. Is there any evidence that they would quit their jobs if they did not get the unnecessary 3.5% raise?
(Oh. I figured out your misperception of "contradicting". I am in favor of bargaining, but only if those involve choose to participate in it. That's the most fair. I oppose forced bargaining, including being forced to let others supposedly bargain on your behalf.)
Your "opposition" to collective bargaining is a smokescreen to your anti worker, anti union position Dmarks. You don't even undestand why I call those that support so called "right to work" states "scabs."
here is how these scabs operate in these anti worker states. They may say they are against unions, but the reality the union faces is that in these states, they are required to represent scabs that don't support the union through membership and dues. These scabs want union benefits without paying their fair share. They want concientious union members to pay for them.
Now that I've explained why I call them scabs, I would hope you understand. And I hope you also understand why I label these "right to work states" as "right to scab states."
Truth: My positions are very pro-worker. Even if union bosses disagree.
"Your "opposition" to collective bargaining is a smokescreen to your anti worker"
Actually, I fully support collective bargaining as long as each member of the collective is there by choice. That is the most fair to workers, of course. I am very pro-worker. I do not want workers forced to give money to outside groups that go against their interest and have nothing to do with their ability to do the job.
"anti union position"
I would not be nearly so anti-union if the idea of forcing workers to join was not a mainstream idea of Big Labor. I respect the ACLU, whether or not I agree with it on issues. But I do not respect the UAW since most of its members are in the union against their will.
"they are required to represent scabs that don't support the union through membership and dues."
Whose fault is this? I strongly oppose unions having to represent and give stuff to those who do not wish to participate in the union.
"These scabs want union benefits without paying their fair share."
Why is the union giving away benefits to non-members? Is it yet another flaw in the nation's labor laws? Careless behavior by unions? or what?
"Why is the union giving away benefits to non-members? Is it yet another flaw in the nation's labor laws? Careless behavior by unions? or what?"
This is the fault of anti union legislators. It is the law in right to scab states that the union must represent anyone in an organized shop whether or not they are members. The reason for this law has nothing to do with anyone wanting or not wanting to be a union member. It is solely to keep unions out. The union can't afford to service and enforce a contract without those it represents paying dues for the expenses incurred. If your position is those that do not want to be in the union also receive no benefits from being protected by contract to which they invest nothing, then we can have common ground.
The union is under obligation by law to represent all workers in an organized shop equally. If a worker believes he is not being represented then he can file charges with the union's district office. After that, the Dep. of Labor.
I admit that unions are not perfect. We have idiots and jerks in leadership positions just as management has it's share of idiots and jerks. If there were a way to eliminate the idiots and jerks from management we wouldn't need unions.
"It is the law in right to scab states that the union must represent anyone in an organized shop whether or not they are members."
Well, we do have some agreement on this, I think. It's ridiculous. We do indeed have common ground.
Thanks for the clarification on that law.
Shouldn't the PAC arm of the union movement target this law for repeal? Instead of pushing for getting rid of the secret ballot in union elections? That is their main goal now.
I agree with you herer Dmarks. The secret ballot benefits labor and management. And the best agreements are when both parties believe they've been treated fairly. And yes. Union pac money should be spent towards changing the law in right to work states.
On a side note, the unions call for a 50 plus one vote to organize is ridiculous. It should be 2/3 majority at least. The number in reality is higher than that to have a viable shop, but if you don't have at least two thirds, you ain't got squat. 51% means they're not sold. No secret ballot means alot of guys will stay home on election night. Your numbers have to be true.
Under current labor laws in Illnois, if I am an employer, and my employees vote to unionize and come to me as a collective to bargain, if we cannot come to an agreement, can I legally let them all go and hire new people?
The law says both sides have to bargain in good faith. The next step is mediation. If a mediator can't get the bargaining process on track the union can vote to strike. You can hire replacements while their on strike. If you fire them during bargaining you're subject to an unfair labor practice suit. Under the Bush administration this meant nothing. You may be taking a chance under this administration.
The best thing to do is look at contracts reached by successful employers with union workforces. See what their work rules are and copy them. It will make life for both sides easier. Proper enforcement of fair work rules make for an efficient and profitable workplace.
Truth,
It is never my intent to poop any party. I strive to never be pedantic, however, I wanted to defend Grant. He was a victim of his loyalty, bred in the military, to his cabinet. It wasn't reciprocated.
Harding, too surrounded himself with bad actors. Knowing he wasn't up to the job, he hired what he considered to be the best and brightest. He succeeded, however, they were also the "corruptest."
As for unions, I respect your knowledge on the subject as my experience is in the police union which is probably different to yours.
We didn't have the strike on our side, as it should not have been, therefore the dynamic was quite different and involved binding arbitration.
As for unions in this day and age, their reach has far surpassed their usefulness. They are no longer a union protecting the working force, but are now guilty of extortion which has resulted in pay and benefits far exceeding their contribution to society. Perspective is in order.
My first house cost $20,900. My car was more expensive.
Good day, sir.
Respectfully to you LaOT. You benefitted from union membership. The wages, benefits and retirement packages you received show that. For you, or anyone that has benefitted from union membership to now be against other workers enjoying the security and benefits of working under a contract, I find selfish and a betrayal.
And there's a big difference in negotiations when management is subject to binding arbitration. Those workers can't be replaced because of a strike. Striking workers can be replaced. If I had a choice, I'd take my chances with the arbitrator rather than try and hold a shop together during a strike.
Just to clear in case I misunderstand your position on unions LaOT. If your problem is with certain high level leaders that are more concerned only with the collection of dues and going to expensive meetings with famous politicians, rather than using those resources to grow union membership and protect it's members from unjust treatment, then I agree.
As for trying not to be pedantic? You have an impressive resume and a vast reservoir of knowledge LaOT. I don't think anyone that's familiar with you would consider anything you wrote pedantic. You're a guy that knows what he's talking about with a view I sometimes disagree with.
As for loyalty? I'm loyal to a fault but it works both ways. Disloyalty through bad and embarrassing behavior needs to be punished. From the top and the bottom.
Truth,
First, thanks for your second reply. It speaks to your fundamental fairness.
Let me be clear, I am a union guy. I've been in a union of one form or other since 1975. I was a president of my union for 5 years. I am a union guy.
My point may not have been clear. Most unions in their current form do not resemble unions at their inception. Most of the basic safety issues, good wages and benefits etc., are settled and the baseline established. Unions are responsible for the middle class.
Union leadership has now turned to political concerns instead of the daily concerns of its members. Unions necessarily have to keep track and lobby for legislation that directly affects its membership.
But I part ways with becoming a stooge for candidates and their elective pursuits. I steadfastly refused to endorse candidates when I ran our union and believe me every candidate wanted a police endorsement.
Politicians and politics is too sleazy for any hardworking person to be beholden to. I question the expenditure of millions of dollars of member dues being used to pimp candidates. IMO it makes for an unholy alliance.
My point is unions are political entities now and have lost their unique status as defenders of workers. The leaders strong arm concessions out of companies that they never really can meet, in order to solidify their own power and they use that power to pander to politicians. All for a tidy salary that their members will never see.
I remember negotiating with the city many times with the knowledge that their financial status was shaky at best. To be reasonable is not to give in. It is to realize that the goose can be killed.
Keeping the wage and benefit demands at a sane level keeps the jobs for your members. Even the hotheads in the end realize that job security for another three years beats the alternative.
Furlough days are becoming the norm in negotiations for police unions. It's an issue I'm glad I don't have try to sell my members. Although, I think it would be something to look at favorably. Again, it beats layoffs. Sanity should reign.
As usual, discourse with you is interesting and yes, sane.
Good day, sir.
Excellent points. I've always believed good language that protects jobs and seniority is far more important to the members than any raise.
I don't know how the Police Unions dole out contributions to politicos. The Machinists can't donate dues. We have a separate PAC.
On one hand it would have been nice to be able to "strong arm" management. Unfortunatly, my team went up against some real hardasses. I'll bet GM and Chrysler wish they would have been hardasses as well now.
Greed not tempered with good sense doesn't lead anywhere good.
Truth said: "If you fire them during bargaining you're subject to an unfair labor practice suit"
I think that's rather unfair if they are actually working. But if they have walked away from their jobs? No problem. The jobs are open, waiting to be filled.
Strikers don't get much sympathy.
Good news for everyone, I think: I just heard that the backers of the "Employee Free Choice Act" have dropped the insisting on banning secret-ballot protection.
This is good for the backers of the act, as it will be more likely to pass without that very poison pill in it.
It's good for the Chamber of Commerce and groups representing small businesses, who feared problems caused by large number of workers employees into unions through rigged, coercive sham "elections" which would happen from the lack of secret ballot protections.
It is also good for workers, who now won't lose their democratic rights in union-related votes (even if this act passes).
We agree on removal of the card check portion of this act. It does neither side any service. Thanks for pointing that out Dmarks.
Post a Comment