Aren't many of the biggest screwups in the non-unionized part of the private sector?

JP Morgan/Chase is one of those private sector behemoths which is "too big to fail." This is NOT a partisan statement. Both Republican AND Democratic leaders lined up to dump gigantic piles of our tax dollars into the corporate troughs to be devoured by these welfare kings and queens in their thousand dollar+ suits, wearing their solid gold Rolex watches.

People are people. Government officials screw up. Private sector magnates screw up. When both screw up, the American people suffer, often with a greater tax burden. Here's the Forbes article. But similar articles are at a variety of websites, with different perspectives. I especially liked the way this article places this situation into the greater context:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucekasanoff/2014/10/03/jpmorgan-chase-brea...

No votes yet

Yes, and by your headline, I think it's about time we unionize them all, steel their money, teach them the man is out to get them, tell them to vote for one and one parties candidates only and teach them to be less productive.

And there is a larger more vocal group on the GOP side who doesn't like bailouts period. Not for private companies, nor for union or government businesses.

But you are right TMFM, the solutions is definitively NOT unionization.

MikeyA

Keep beating the dead union horse, Mikey!
As I posted, I am merely pointing out that non-union people are just as imperfect as are all human beings.

Dale, my post was in response to TMFM.

He was the one who said that's what you were implying. I responded to him. Please don't act as if I was the one who bridged the subject. I stated my peace on it.

MikeyA

dead union horse so much!

And my point is still the same. These financial positions have NEVER been union jobs, AND being non-union DOES NOT make human beings better at their jobs.

And it's extremely telling that you ignored the rest of my post.

Once again, I didn't bring up unions, I said my peace on it. I was done on it beyond what I said, you keep replying and bringing it up. Anyone beating the dead horse is you.

I NEVER supported bailing out ANY of the banks. You can look back to my comments here. There are many more Republicans who support this position than there are Democrats. So you're arguing with the wrong people if you don't like bank bailouts. The Democrats are so supportive of bail outs they might as well be the bail-out party.

I believe only through failure can lessons be truly learned. By bailing out banks and car companies we denied them a chance to learn the lessons. Without bailing them out our economy would have taken a hit, probably for longer than we experienced, but it would rise stronger.

Now as far as the financial positions that were non-union, you're right, they're not union jobs. And they should be fired. No where is there more responsibility toward punishing incompetence than in the non-union private sector. Instead the GOVERNMENT kept these people in jobs because they bailed them out. They should have been fired.

Your President was so instrumental in it that he appointed one of them as the Secretary of Treasury! So once again, you're arguing with the wrong people. Go convince your party that bailouts are bad.

MikeyA

Too bad that vocal group was taken over by the Kochs and other special interests and that you (the plural you) refuse to acknowledge it because the vast majority of that body are low-information, unthinking morons.

Remember, the Tea Party *was* anti-bailout at the start, then they were infiltrated and turned into a body of easily-outraged idiots after taxation and social conservative issues were thrown into the pot to stir everyone up.

How are they for bailouts now?

Did I miss the Tea Party Bail Out Rally?

MikeyA

Inside the Koch Brothers' Toxic Empire
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-the-koch-brothers-toxic...

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

You attempt to change the focus of this thread. That is a good debating technique. If one cannot win an argument on the topic raised, change the topic!

Managers in giant corporations considered to be "too big to fail" put tens of millions of Americans in jeopardy, and you're OK with this because, in your opinion, being unionized is somehow worse. What sense does that make? How is that germane to the issue presented?

I posted this thread because many posters on this site want to blame unions for everything bad that happens in America, even though well over 90% of workers in the private sector are NOT in unions! You can all stop beating the union horse. It's already dead! I am merely pointing out that non-union people make gigantic mistakes, even though they make a LOT more money and have a LOT more authority than do union workers, along with outnumbering union members about 16-1 in the private sector!

Full Show: Too Big to Jail?
October 3, 2014
http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-big-jail/
Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation last week reminds us of an infuriating fact: No banking executives have been criminally prosecuted for their role in causing the biggest financial disaster since the Great Depression.

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

"You can all stop beating the union horse. It's already dead!"

Not in the public sector. Although unionization as a % of the US population has dropped, it only did so since the drop in the large private sector was severe... while the rise in the smaller public sector was modest. BUT IT STILL ROSE THERE.

And that's precisely the problem. When we complain about unions we are almost always talking about PUBLIC unions. You are massively butthurt about this since you're in one of those public unions, Dale. Or you're a retiree sucking out bennies from one, which is even worse (i.e. you get paid but you don't work for what you get).

Dale you're still "talking your own book" and it's my lifelong aim to make sure I counter all your BULLSHIT until your heavily-entitled parasitical generation finally dies the fuck off. Only then will the US taxpayer know relief and get your thieving little hands out of our pockets.

(Feel free to quote me on any of that. I've got more on tap if you want it.)

union members about 2-1. And the states, like Mississippi and Georgia, which have Right-to-work-for-less laws, and therefore have very few in unions, whether public or private sector, are among the worst in per capita GDP and unemployment rates.

GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, you still don't get it. If unions were the problem that you and your fellow travelers claim that unions are, RTWFL states, like Mississippi and Georgia, which have been RTWFL states for about 60 years of more! would be thriving, while non-RTWFL states, like Ohio, would be in shambles. Ohio Governor Sick CLAIMED that he could not get a handle on Ohio's state budget, nor on the overall economy of Ohio unless he had SB5 become law in 2011. Now, he and Josh Mandel claim they are geniuses because the state has balanced budgets and lowered unemployment. How can this be possible without SB5?? Could it be that public employees really do care about their communities and gave up over $1,000,000,000 in concessions -- through the collective bargaining process which SB5 would have gutted -- in order to have a positive role in helping their fellow citizens? And, of course, both Governor Sick and Mandel claim that they somehow balanced a state budget which had been in deficit, knowing full well that, according to the Constitution of the State of Ohio, NO OHIO STATE BUDGET MAY BE IN DEFICIT!! In other words, the previous governor had balanced budgets for 4 years straight, as his predecessors ALL had, because having a budget deficit is Unconstitutional in Ohio!!
I know that there are a lot of facts here. and I know how much ideologues HATE facts, but rest assured, you may quote me on any part of this, Mr. Empty Glass.

Oh I get it, all right. I get how unions drove up costs until they bankrupted their companies... except in the cases were the companies couldn't bankrupt, which only happens in one case: Government.

That's why unions are being driven out of the private sector, and why they are seeking safe haven in the public sector. And that will continue to happen until the voter wises up and kicks them off their tax rolls.

You will never admit any of this since you have a conflict of interest. You're one of the union parasites. You sucked on the public tit while you were employed, and now you keep sucking the public tit while you're retired. The public has funded you for your entire working life, and now you've schemed to get the public to fund your retirement. Well, that's a ticking time bomb and it's what truly terrifies you. That's why you come onto these message boards and lie like a rug to get people to believe that unions aren't a huge and unnecessary public cost. You talk your own book.

Well, your propaganda will not go unchallenged. Unions are pure economic poison. They do nothing but drive up costs until the cost of labor in the select industry is just too expensive to afford. The only rational way to arrange employers and employees is via market forces. Of course, that only really works once probity rules the public habits... so we must wait until more Americans bankrupt in their personal excesses before they will come to appreciate the power of frugality in all things, public and private.

I'm never going away, Dale, and I'm younger than you. You will die while hearing my voice on these forums. All the Boomer and Silent generations have to realize this. The time of their largesse is over, and we successor generations are out for blood. Your blood... because it never belonged to you anyway, since you stole it via taxation and unions.

opinion, as usual!

Chances are strong that I will die before you. However, people with factual support will take my place and always have better arguments than people like you who have only vacuous opinions. At least Mikey and some others here states facts to support many of their positions.
And, don't be so sure that you're going to outlive me. My cousin was married to a great woman who died of cancer in her 30s! Good luck!

the economy, why isn't Mississippi one of the leading states in per capita GDP? Mississippi passed Right-to-Work-for-Less legislation in 1954! How much has RTWFL helped Mississippi or any of the other states where it is the law?

I am incuding a link to an article from the Forbes website. According to the author of the article, RTWFL is partisan, pro-Republican, anti-Democratic legislation. He debunks -- with some of those pesky facts that ideologues hate -- any notion that RTWFL helps workers. In fact, according to his factual research, RTWFL legislation hurts ALL workers, whether they belong to unions or not. RTWFL does NOT create jobs. In fact, states often LOSE jobs, because workers have less disposable income to spend after states pass RTWFL laws. Read with an open mind, and learn.
Here's the link to the article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/12/11/right-to-work-laws-expl...

It's settled then. You shouldn't move to Mississippi.

Somewhere the people of Mississippi are rejoicing.

MikeyA

that the state studied was Oklahoma!

In addition, you ignore the fact that, since Mississippi has had RTWFL for 60 YEARS, and since Mississippi is one of the poorest states in America by almost every measure, getting rid of unions almost entirely, DOES NOT lead to prosperity. In fact, and the study in the article points this out, often states with RTWFL laws, like Oklahoma, LOSE JOBS after RTWFL is passed, because RTWFL almost always leads to lower wages for ALL workers, meaning ALL WORKERS have less disposable income, can't buy as many goods and services, and companies layoff workers, and/or close up all together.

RTWFL is a race to the bottom for state economies. Mississippi proves this. Oklahoma proves this. Keep ignoring those pesky facts, Mikey. Don't ever let them get in the way of your opinions! And, you do beat that dead union horse a LOT!

BTW -- In the original post, I state that BOTH Republicans AND Democrats deserve blame for the way the bailout was done. You are making that part of the argument partisan.

Mississippi was poor before RTW. There were inherent problems within Mississippi that will take generations to overcome.

As far as Oklahoma, how does RTW cause it to lose jobs if wages fall? If wages fall, there is no need to fire workers. That is the flaw in your logic.

RTW is the natural state. GZ has pointed this out many times. When you force industries to collective bargain you artificially inflate the wage. Workers are rejecting unions, taxpayers are rejecting unionization. That is what actually is a fact.

Really? I'm making this partisan? The Tea Party represents a large faction in the Republican party that is AGAINST bailouts. Yet, I've seen lots of hate on this thread alone. Hell, AC even suggested they were for it which is entirely untrue. If you're so against bail outs you need to start by holding your President and Dem nominee accountable. It's ok, I know you won't.

MikeyA

has done NOTHING to help the economy of Mississippi. You state, "There were inherent problems within Mississippi that will take generations to overcome." RTWFL HAS ALREADY BEEN IN PLACE IN MISSISSIPPI MORE THAN TWO FULL GENERATIONS -- 60 YEARS!! As I stated many times before, if unions were the problem, Mississippi's economy would have started booming about 10 years ago, EVEN BY YOUR "GENERATIONS" STANDARD, MIKEY!! My point remains valid -- RTWFL does nothing to help the economy.

Now, the other misdirected point you attempt to make is that RTWFL did not "cause [Oklahoma] to lose jobs if wages fall." Did you read the article? I also read the study upon which the article was based. Let me state this clearly for you, Mikey. When wages go down just because there is no collective bargaining, no unions, common workers have less money to spend. Because common workers have less money to spend, they by less products from stores and use less services provided in their communities. Those stores, and some of the manufacturers of the products which are accumulating UNSOLD on store shelves, cut employees, and/or close, because they can't sell as much product. Some cannot sell enough to stay in business. It's an economic race to the bottom.

Really??? You're going to use GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass as some kind of expert? He is an expert on nothing. He has no credentials, and very little practical experience. My advice is to not use him, but that's up to you.

Dale just because you don't find GZ as "credentialed" doesn't mean I have to ignore him. His opinions are based in principle. He and I don't always agree. He's called me a "brain washed neocon" on more than one occasion. But he's right about natural law.

You're ignoring that Mississippi has had and continues to have huge gaps in education that are cultural. Those cultural stigma haven't even begun to be breached which is why there's been little movement in 2 generations. It will take multiple generations for it to be overcome because it will require cultural changes.

Now, you're using just Oklahoma as an example but in the last 25 years it's RTW states that have added the most jobs. States like North Dakota, Nevada, and Texas have vastly overproduced states like Connecticut, Ohio, and New Jersey that are not RTW states. Additionally Mississippi was #4 in Median Income Change from 1990-2012 (ND was #1), and #1 from the data from 1962. So.... how are wages falling when it's got the fastest growth of median income? Theft from Louisiana?

MikeyA

your choice.

You ignore the fact that your primary premise is that unions are the ruin of economies, and that Mississippi has been as free of unions as any state, and in 60 YEARS OF RTWFL, VIRTUALLY NO UNIONS, Mississippi still languishes.

The Oklahoma example was extensive research done for a professional article. Your ruminations about North Dakota, Nevada, and Texas, are off the top-of-your-head, or with minimal research. You profess that Mississippi has "cultural stigma" that prevent the wonders of RTWFL from working. How creative! If facts don't support your ideology, make something up that will, Mikey!
Texas AND North Dakota have a little thing called huge reserves of petroleum and natural gas. Do you think that makes a difference in economic development?
In addition, North Dakota is mostly rural and empty of people.
Nevada was the first state to allow both gambling AND legal prostitution. Could that have helped in economic development? AND Nevada's unemployment rate is 7.6%, ranking it tied for 47th place. (Mississippi is #50.)
In 51st place (the list includes D.C.) is Georgia. Refresh my memory. Is Georgia a RTWFL state? It is!! Why hasn't RTWFL worked its non-union magic in Georgia? And Georgia became a RTWFL state in 1947!! That's 67 years ago!! You're awfully patient, Mikey!

BTW -- Ohio's unemployment rate is 5.7%, LOWER THAN all of these RTWFL states:
Alabama...Arizona...Arkansas...Florida...Georgia...Louisiana...
Michigan...Mississippi...Nevada...North Carolina...South Carolina...and Tennessee. Remember, the burden of proof is on you and your fellow travelers to prove how much better RTWFL is than not having RTWFL. If unionism is the problem, ALL RTWFL states should be at of near the top of economic statistics, ahead of states without RTWFL laws, like Ohio.

Lastly, again, if you actually read the article I cited above, you would have discovered that the Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947 GIVES WORKERS THE FREEDOM TO NOT JOIN A UNION AND GET TO KEEP THEIR JOBS, without RTWFL laws. Under Taft-Hartley, no one can be forced to join a union. There are NO "CLOSED SHOPS" allowed under Taft-Hartley!! Under Taft-Hartley, unions must give ALL WORKERS the same rights, whether they join the union or not. Under Taft-Hartley, unions cannot force non-members to pay for political activity. Under Taft-Hartley, unions cannot force non-members to pay for anything considered to be not a direct cost of enforcing the collective bargaining agreement, period! So, in states which do not have RTWFL laws, non-members pay a fee which is a portion of that which members pay, but STILL GET THE SAME RATES OF PAY, THE SAME BENEFITS, AND THE SAME UNION SUPPORT that members get.

As the article well articulates, and remember, this is posted on the Forbes website, not some far-left liberal dispenser of socialist propaganda, RTWFL laws are partisan pieces of legislation aimed at weakening the Democratic Party, period! Taft-Hartley provides the freedom RTWFL proponents claim they desire for workers. And, as the research shows, not ideology, but factual research, RTWFL often leads to a worse economy for a state than if they did not have such a law.

"You ignore the fact that your primary premise is that unions are the ruin of economies," I didn't say that. I said that forcing collective bargaining goes against the natural law and order of natural economics.

"The Oklahoma example was extensive research done for a professional article. Your ruminations about North Dakota, Nevada, and Texas, are off the top-of-your-head, or with minimal research." You were the one who cherry picked one example of a RTW state and the study you used blamed RTW for the loss of wages and thus the loss of jobs. So... if RTW causes wages to fall explain why those other states saw their wages increase. Gambling and prostitution? Once again, let's compare gambling, so using that theory New Jersey should be out performing the states around it, it's not. I've never heard of people swarming to Nevada for prostitution.

"Texas AND North Dakota have a little thing called huge reserves of petroleum and natural gas." So does Pennsylvania, not a RTW state, it falls at best in the middle of median income change.

"Lastly, again, if you actually read the article I cited above, you would have discovered that the Taft-Hartley Act, passed in 1947 GIVES WORKERS THE FREEDOM TO NOT JOIN A UNION AND GET TO KEEP THEIR JOBS, without RTWFL laws. Under Taft-Hartley, no one can be forced to join a union."
Good! That means you shouldn't have a problem with RTW legislation then. Man it was tough getting there but I'm glad that we agree people should be totally free to make their own choices.

MikeyA

purposely misinterpreting Taft-Hartley. Taft-Hartley gives workers freedom. You don't even dispute that RTWFL lowers remuneration for ALL WORKERS -- union and non-union alike. That's not freedom. That's workers' rights suppression!

And, I never stated that I support Taft-Hartley. It is Federal law. It does give the type of freedom to workers conservatives claim to want. RTWFL is not only unneeded, it has proved to be bad for ALL workers.

BTW -- You carefully ignore the fact that your example of a state which is doing well, Nevada, without the systemic problems you claim Mississippi has yet to overcome in 60 years of RTWFL laws, has a higher unemployment rate than does Ohio, a NON-RTWFL state! How can that be??? AND I once again state...Mississippi: 60 years of RTWFL and still one of the poorest states in the union...Georgia 67 years of RTWFL, and the highest unemployment rate of any state in the entire nation!

With its tiny population, North Dakota's oil and gas wealth has much more impact on the overall health of their economy than in other states. It is a poor example because it is such an exception both in its wealth and in its tiny population. But, choose whatever you want. Your position is untenable on this issue.

RTWFL is a partisan issue meant to cripple Democratic candidates. And it works. Just admit it! Don't continue to pretend that RTWFL is somehow good for America and good for American workers. BTW -- I did not select Oklahoma to study. I just read that particular, well documented article and was impressed!

Finally...natural law means that people may NOT form groups to better themselves? Does that mean that we should not have a military?? You (and your mentor GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass) should thoroughly define what you mean when you use the term "natural law." Is forming into a group to better oneself an unnatural act?? Let's see. I still belong to a union, as a retired member. I belong to a poker club. I belong to a senior softball league. I belong to my Temple. I belong to AAA. I belong to the JCC/YMCA. Are all of these groups unnatural?? Which of these groups is allowed under your and GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass's "natural laws?" Any of them? None of them? (Heaven forbid), all of them?

" It does give the type of freedom to workers conservatives claim to want. RTWFL is not only unneeded, it has proved to be bad for ALL workers." Well since they have freedom and RTW is not needed, you should have no problem passing it since it will have no affect. Of course you and I both know this is not true and that's why there were protests in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Since you agree that cherry picking one state is not a good policy for determining if RTW is good or not let's take it as a group. In the same category of Median Income Changes from 1992-2012 the top 10 states had more RTW states than non-RTW states. Also the bottom 10 had more non-RTW states than RTW states.

"RTWFL is a partisan issue meant to cripple Democratic candidates." How so? RTW affects only worker/employer relationships. Not campaigns. RTW is not a FEC regulated issue.

"Finally...natural law means that people may NOT form groups to better themselves?" Wrong. According to natural law you may form groups for survival and quality of life.

However, if I am not in the group, and I have to give up more in trade to the group that I do not wish to trade. For the group to want to trade they must bring forth an equal ammount that would give me cause to part with that which you wish me to trade. If you won't trade fairly with me, I can go to the group across the river and trade with them, or I can choose to trade only with individuals of your group if I so wish.

Now if I am in the group, I must be willing to submit to the rules within the group. If I wish not to then I should be allowed to leave the group.

MikeyA

RTWFL is not necessary FOR WORKER FREEDOM. You have admitted that one goal of RTWFL is to DECREASE worker remuneration, which you and GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass consider to be a good thing! And, RTWFL does help the Republican cause by hurting those who support Democratic candidates. You may deny so on this forum all you want Mikey, but you know it's true. And you know that's why you want RTWFL laws in every state!

I found your commentary about "natural law" most amusing. So, people may join groups, "...for survival and quality of life," when they want to, but joining groups called unions is somehow bad? According to you and your mentor on natural law, GZ aka Mr. Empty Glass, what unions mainly do, collective bargaining, is against natural law, so joining unions must be against natural law, too!

I'll stop now. I'll just let you argue with yourself on this topic. You're doing that so very well, Mikey!

Mikey hates the Bill of Rights.

People have the right to assemble, that includes into unions. Mind you, according to the Supreme Court as of late, corporations are people too. So I guess that means Mikey the Hypocrite will be trying to explain why the corporate person should get everything a union made out of actual people shouldn't.

The People's Choice for Biggest Troll on Swampbubbles everybody! A feat he accomplished by decimating his opponents!

MikeyA

You can't defend yourself when it's put out there plainly, so you go to the ad hominem attack. Nice try, REMF Mikey.

You have yourself a nice REMF job in the military and continue to support government spending and foreign policy that keeps you employed, yet you are against any other spending or change in foreign policy. You support continued defense spending even for crap we don't need, which is simplified down to the government making stuff and paying people just to keep them employed which is SOCIALISM.

You believe that people shouldn't be allowed to unionize, but you support the ability of corporations to monopolize, collude, join together to lobby the government, and so on, which is ANTI-LABOR.

You want the government to be run by corporations so you can keep your job and all the people like you can have jobs while your corporate masters make all the money they can and anyone you don't like suffers. And you'll call it "free-market capitalism" the entire time, hoping that the people don't wise up to your BS.

Well AC you swung and missed with everything you say I want or support.

Thanks for playing though.

Here's the home version of the game.

MikeyA

You failed to show how it hurts Democratic candidates. Unless you're saying that unions are a political entitiy, in which case, they should have to follow the laws of other political PACs.

You're also saying workers are free to do what they want, if this is true then RTW will not affect unions or union membership at all.

" but joining groups called unions is somehow bad?" I didn't say that now did I? Please show me where.

"what unions mainly do, collective bargaining, is against natural law," I didn't say that as well. I said they have the right to trade goods and services for goods and services. But if the one they're trading with does not agree to the trade then the party who does not agree has the right to walk away.

Unions are natural per natural law. Forcing others to deal with them, however, goes against natural law. Similarly forcing others to contribute to them goes against natural law.

Unions provide a service. If they provided it well there would be no issue at all. The failure on the unions is not the fault of any legislation, it is only upon the failure of union leadership.

MikeyA

You are now arguing with yourself, Mikey.

And don't forget when workers can't afford things they end up with

* SNAP and other food assistance including free/reduced school lunches
* Medicaid for health care, if not just going to the E.R. for everything and thus jacking up the rates for everyone else as they can't pay their E.R. bills
* Subsidized housing (Section 8)
* Tons of other assistance

Thus turning all those goddamned red states into WELFARE STATES SUCKING UP FEDERAL TAX DOLLARS because the employers that flock to the RTW RED WELFARE STATES don't pay jack shit thus the Federal tax dollars collected from the RED "RIGHT TO WORK" WELFARE STATES will continue to be LESS THAN the Federal tax dollars given to the RED "RIGHT TO WORK" WELFARE STATES.

That's called a "vicious circle", not that Mikey is intelligent enough to recognize that sort of thing.

So you're saying all Teabaggers are Republicans? "The Tea Party represents a large faction in the Republican party"

I'm sorry Socialist MikeyA but if companies have the right to organize and work to screw the people then We the People (Labor) have the same right to organize and screw the companies. Unless what you're saying is that you're anti-individual and anti-collective rights. Why do you hate Americans, you socialist pig?

AC I've said previously that the Tea Party is a movement. The movement is found significantly within the Republican party. Does it mean it's solely in the GOP? No.

You're calling me both anti-Labor and socialist in the same sentence. That's so cute.

MikeyA

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.