Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board. (The 2012 window is now closed; thanks for playing.)
bad hammy wrote:Nice trolling, malmo. Start a thread trashing Pelosi for (supposedly) not using union workers, then spend the rest of the time trashing unions. So according to your initial stance, Pelosi is on your anti-union side, but somehow that is a problem for you. Nice way to flip-flop all over the issues. . . .
I thought the irony of the Pelosi union-busting was obvious here?
tandfman wrote:Sorry, malmo, I think you're going to find yourself outnumbered on this issue. I've always been a management guy myself, but my parents were union members, and I've always believed that unions, in general, have been a very positive force in our nation's economic history.
So was the steam engine, cotton gin, and internal combustion engine. Unions have no place in a modern industrial society, in fact, they have a negative impact on productivity wherever their suffocating influence exists today - in government, big education-industrial-complex, and the auto industry, for example.
You are painting with too broad of a brush...
gotta go with malmo here
you americans have never had a situation where unions brought down a govt
in limey, we endured that horrendous experience in '79
ruling labour party ( = ~ democrats ) had gained power in '74 on a small ( ? coalition ) majority
the party was founded by/for the "workers" ( = unions ) & more-or-less was funded by the unions
in '79 there were terrible disputes on public workers pay/conditions/yada & the unions behind the workers eventually declared the "3 day week" - this meant virtually all public workers ( transport/refuse/etc ) worked only 3 days/5 working days, meaning refuse piled up on the streets & army was called in to clear it up !
remember, this isn't banana republic, this is limey !
the govt was impotent - it was going up against the unions who founded/funded/ran it !
the crisis meant "vote of confidence" in parliament
govt lost & election was called
labour party ( = ~ democrats ) lost & maggie thatcher ( = republican ) came in
she had no shackles of union-kowtowing
she crushed them
ushered in were almost 13y of almost continuous great prosperity for the sceptered isle...
That's exactly the example I was thinking of. Also, when the American Airlines Pilots' Union declared a strike in 1997, Bill Clinton ordered them back to work. Furthermore, unions in this country are just one of many interest groups in the Democratic coalition, along with Blacks, Trial Lawyers, Feminists, Environmentalists, Gays, etc.
Bringing down a govt here is nigh on impossible. British parliamentary govt? Much easier, since there can be elections called as frequently as required.
Someone here made what I think is a valid observation that the problem with unions is not in principle but in practice... or somethng like that...
Railroad featherbedding comes to mind, probably because I have a relative who works for a railroad and even he derides their economically unwise work limitations.
lonewolf wrote:Someone here made what I think is a valid observation that the problem with unions is not in principle but in practice... or somethng like that... Railroad featherbedding comes to mind, probably because I have a relative who works for a railroad and even he derides their economically unwise work limitations.
Good points. Just because unions are needed in many cases to protect workers' rights, and just because they often do good things, does not at all mean that everything they do is good.
gm wrote:Bringing down a govt here is nigh on impossible. British parliamentary govt? Much easier, since there can be elections called as frequently as required
no
there hasn't been a < ~ 4y govt term here since '24
gm wrote:Bringing down a govt here is nigh on impossible. British parliamentary govt? Much easier, since there can be elections called as frequently as required
no
there hasn't been a < ~ 4y govt term here since '24
You're forgetting the election(s) in 1951? Where Labour had something like a year or less in 1950/51 and Churchill was re-elected after being voted out in '45.
If I'm incorrect, it's because I wasn't there at the time!
gm wrote:Bringing down a govt here is nigh on impossible. British parliamentary govt? Much easier, since there can be elections called as frequently as required
no
there hasn't been a < ~ 4y govt term here since '24
I was going to ask how pedantic Eldrick wanted to get, but then I realised where I was ...
Whether it's the case or not I don't know, but you could argue that a government term is only the length between general elections. Once parliament is dissolved, that's the end of whichever party's term in government. The fact of whether they're re-elected or not is rather irrelevant. Although I'm really splitting hairs here!
Anyway, unions have their good and bad points. Whatever abuses are committed are generally outweighed by the genuine protections they give. And I say this coming from a very definitely anti-union family. I'm wary of them, but I know if they weren't there, you'd have to reinvent them.
AthleticsInBritain wrote:The fact of whether they're re-elected or not is rather irrelevant. Although I'm really splitting hairs here!
i'm afraid it is relevant
proof is in pudding - we may have elections of indeterminate frequency, some often, others every 5y, but history books show that a party has not served less than a ~4y term in 84y
AthleticsInBritain wrote:The fact of whether they're re-elected or not is rather irrelevant. Although I'm really splitting hairs here!
i'm afraid it is relevant
proof is in pudding - we may have elections of indeterminate frequency, some often, others every 5y, but history books show that a party has not served less than a ~4y term in 84y
Wouldn't it be more precise to say that a party has't served less than four years than saying that a government hasn't served less than four years?
lonewolf wrote:Someone here made what I think is a valid observation that the problem with unions is not in principle but in practice... or somethng like that... Railroad featherbedding comes to mind, probably because I have a relative who works for a railroad and even he derides their economically unwise work limitations.
Which is why I noted that an election for a new union every 20-30 years or so would be good. Democracy works best when elections have meaningful competition, and in the world of organized labor that pretty much only happens when a union is certified.
My particular union local jumped the shark about seven or eight years ago. It's part of the AFT and replaced an NEA local in 1969 in a bitter fight. Another fight like that is warranted now.
AthleticsInBritain wrote:The fact of whether they're re-elected or not is rather irrelevant. Although I'm really splitting hairs here!
i'm afraid it is relevant
proof is in pudding - we may have elections of indeterminate frequency, some often, others every 5y, but history books show that a party has not served less than a ~4y term in 84y
Wouldn't it be more precise to say that a party has't served less than four years than saying that a government hasn't served less than four years?
tantamount to same thing - largest party has provided the prime-minister during all this time either thru having >50% parliamentary majority or thru a coalition if <50%
Because the Unions that still exist in the Bay Area are in bed with the Democrats, and will look the other way when it comes to their friends.
The other big Democrat supporter in California is "the environmentalists".
Yet Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer have all benefited from a sweetheart cash box of a water system that is an environmental disaster that dammed up the Hetch Hetchy valley. To compound the ridiculousness, the Sierra Club founded in the foot steps of John Muir, who fought for this valley with all he could and lost, is also silent when it comes to these Democrats.
*shudders* Thanks for posting copyrighted material from Y**T***, Eldrick.
Please tell me you're being ironic. I do remember. Thatcher did do some much-needed things, but the economic prosperity thing is a bit of bullshit. Yes, people in the South-West grew much richer. But if you lived in a community dependent on a particular industry for jobs, prosperity was very hard to find if your local coal mine/shipyard/steel mill/car factory had just closed. I live in an area that had 80% unemployment through many of the Thatcher years.
Some real manufacturing, even if it's light and small-scale, and actual products to export, are still desperately needed to balance the UK economy.
