Ultra Bob: thank goodness that most of the people that believe like you, making
the poor poorer and the rich richer, live in Europe, North Korea, and Syria.
However, what America really needs are more of those who want to help the poor
get out of poverty, instead of keeping them in poverty! I hope someday you will
see the error of your ways! In the meantime , I will teach my own children the
importance of virtue, thrift, and hard work as a way out of poverty. If I can
get a few more to do the same, perhaps our country will again live up to its
ShaunI NEVER said repubs favor getting union representation and not
paying for it. Why do you misrepresent what I say?you don't
have to work for a union, you can quit and go get a job somewhere else - yeah,
in BO's economy you can - at McDonald's!In many states if
you work in manufacturing or the trades, you MUST belong to a union.
I could say what I think about unions in general, but I have decided to be nice
so I won't. I will, however, point out that you can't increase egg
production by strangling the hen and secondly, we no longer have children
working in coal mines for 70 hours a week; also we do have places like Detroit
that are bankrupt.
Well if you can't beat them straight up just sneak in the back door and
destroy them from behind.Labor reform, voting reform, political
contribution reform, affirmative social reforms, all have the same goal...starve
the beast. Cut the Democratic party off from it's resources and
Err...what does this article really have to do with equal rights? I think the
title and comparison to equal wages in the article are quite a stretch.
Bandersen.It is not necessary to nationalize all business, Although
that might work.Capitalism works just fine when properly regulated.
However capitalist cannot be bribed or even forced to do what is necessary so
competition is the only way to have a free market in labor. Ideally private
enterprise business would take the bait and bring full employment themselves,
putting the government employment out of business.
Kiddsport.You say: "but the government of the USA cannot and should
not provide full employment at "proper pay."I ask WHY?
Where is it written that the government cannot hire as many people as it wants?
Governments are supposed to serve the citizens that they govern. If the
citizens decide that they want full employment and government is the only way to
do it, they ask their government to do it. You say "government
produces nothing." The actual truth is that nothing exists or takes place
in the USA but for the permission, the support and the regulations that is legal
and not provided by nature itself. The only rights and freedoms are those given
to you by the security of the government of the USA.
there is no such thing as workplace inequality anymore than a phony war on women
or any of the other "distraction" tatics used by Barack. I'm a
software engineer and a woman who has the same experience as a man makes the
same salary ... period. This is just a bunch of phony campaign nonsense that
hatches up every year for the past 6 prior to an election and the purpose is to
distract from real issues such as the Obamacare nightmare. Low informatiion
people will sop it up but anyone paying even casual attention to their
surroundings will see it and reject it for what it is - an Obama campaign tatic.
Nice try Barack but strike three your out and the same for your fellow democrat
congressmen and women come November !!
@lost in dc. So republican union members want the benefits of belonging to a
union but think they shouldn't have to pay for union representation? That
does sound like the typical republican, mooching off a system they derive
benefits from but then attacking it out the other side of their mouth.You do not have to work union. You can quit your job and go find some place
that is non union to work at. Even in states that are not "right to
work" states you can still find places to work that aren't union.
I've read this a dozen times now and, frankly, I just can't make the
connection the Employee Right's Act and fixing workplace inequality? I get
it that the author does not have a very high regard for unions but he fails
miserably at showing how the ERA will do anything to address workplace
inequality. A question to Lost in DC: what "hate groups"
Ultra Bob: I've always wanted to make Egyptian pottery at $100,000 a year!
I'm sure all those undertaxed workers will be more than happy to give that
to me! Let's just nationalize all businesses, guarantee everyone the same
wage, and add a big screen tv in every home and free contraception! That will
make America great again!
JoeBlow,Mandatory disclosure of corporate political activity on its face
does not sound like a bad idea – but then you have the hate groups that
boycott chik-fil-a or force the resignation of a CEO or sue business owners
because they do not agree with your point of view.Liberal Larry,Thanks for admitting what he said was factual, even if you do not like his
employmentShaun,Yes, people ARE forced to be union members.
Many states are “closed-shop” states, meaning by law if there is a
union, you MUST belong and you MUST pay dues. Union members vote republican
because republicans believe in the opportunity to get ahead, and that you should
be able to keep what you earn rather than have it flushed away on failing
government programs.Yes, government does have a proper and
productive role in society; too bad it has gone far beyond that proper and
IMO... Legislating our thoughts and actions rarely works. It's better to
hope good people will do good things for the right reasons (not just because
they are required to by law).And realize that there will always be
BAD people out there... and just don't work for them (and the will not have
the best workers and go out of business).====Or... Have
more women starting their own companies. And running their own companies.
Then IF they pay women less than men... they only have themselves to blame (not
the evil men).====I mean we already have unions....
right?Are they not supposed to represent women workers too? And
insure that there's not inequality? Have they just been letting it happen?
Or contributing to it?Maybe we need Women's unions and
Men's Unions... as the normal unions don't seem to be representing
The real problem with jobs is that there aren't enough of them to go
around. This is likely caused by uncertainty created by an administration that
is opposed to traditional management of economic problems. Creating more
government and more government jobs has never been the solution. Getting
government and more rules and regulations out of the way seems to stimulate
economic activity - creating more job opportunities. Regulating unions
doesn't fix the problems. In a free market, unions will need to meet the
needs and desires of their members, or the members will go away.More
government is akin to more unionization - it is about control and power of the
few over the many.
@kiddsport. The attitude that the government is a parasite is the problem with
this country today. To say government does not have a proper and productive role
in society is shortsighted.
Ultra Bob,I hate to break it to you but the government of the USA cannot
and should not provide full employment at "proper pay," especially when
people are accustomed to sitting at home and collecting a check for processing
oxygen. Government produces nothing; it is a parasite that can only rob from the
means of production to redirect it elsewhere, typically in an inefficient and
wasteful, and generally directed to "friends and family." The founders
of our Republic recognized this governmental tendency and laid the groundwork
for keeping it in check. Unfortunately, our short-sightedness and lackadaisical
voting has kept people in power who succumb to this tantalizing greed for living
high off the public largesse.Your reading of history doesn't jibe
with the facts. Wealth always has and always will be created by those willing to
take risks and invest labor AND capital with uncertain prospects of outcomes.
Solyndra, Homeland Security, and the USPS are poster children for how poorly the
government runs businesses.
When businessmen make the rules for employees and their unions, we are
guaranteed to have two losers, the employees and their unions. The
real problem with our economic system is the growing imbalance in the sharing of
wealth produced by the people of our society. Traditionally labor was required
to create most of the wealth and thus the people had a way to participate in the
sharing of the overall benefits of our society. Such is not the case now,
technology, and foreign labor have starved the need for the American worker.
We need jobs and the only entity that could provide those jobs and
the proper pay is the government of the USA. We need for the government to hire
every unemployed worker at a salary that fits the employees need and
qualification. This would not be welfare but real jobs that are needed by the
people of America. Private business will not voluntarily give us full
employment. Businessmen cannot be bribed or forced to do the needed action,
competition from the government can.
No one is forced to be a union member. If you do not like that your union
supports democrats then quit your job and go work non union. On the
other hand I can not understand why union members would vote republican.
Republicans hate the idea of some regular guy making a decent living. I
understand there are social issues republicans represent that union members may
agree with, but you can not feed your family on social issues.
Ad hominem arguments are when someone's argument is discredited on the
basis of an irrelevant fact pertaining to the author making a claim. The fact
that someone is a lobbyist is hardly irrelevant. I just want people
to realize that the author is paid to represent corporate interests.He may be correct in his presentation, but his he is hardly an
"objective" source of information.
Lost in DC and KDave.Good points. Stockholders and consumers are
free to sell their stock or not buy a companies product based on their political
donations and lobby efforts of the corporation.Except that there is
no requirement for Corporations to publicly disclose these political activities,
therefore leaving investors unaware.Do you support mandatory
disclosure of corporate political activity?
No-one is forced to invest in a Corporation or buy its products. However, in
many states (not Utah} you are forced to join a union if you want to work. Big
Roland,Who says the bill is about busting the unions?Liberal
Larry, Marxist,So rather than attack the content of what he said, you
attack the author. Are you unable to argue with any of the statistics he cited
or any of his reasoning?JoeBlow,If it applies to corporations?
You ask why it is different.Stockholders give their consent
to the actions of the board and management by their decisions to sell or retain
the stock and by their votes in the annual shareholder meetings. Shareholders
are not FORCED to pay into the corporation as union members are FORCED to pay
dues. THAT is why it is different. Glad I could explain it for you.FT, Lucky to have a POTUS who encourages public debate – why did
he wait until his 6th year if it was so important? He’s only doing it now
because his party has such a poor record on which to run he needs to divert
attention from it.
BadgerCorporations are supposed to work for their shareholders. As
a shareholder, I do not receive all the profits from the corporations into which
I invest in a fair and equitable manner. Much of the profit from the business
is channeled into executive overpayments, executive benefits, lobbying and
frivolous expense. Much of the profit is withheld from me, and sits in off
shore accounts. Corporate America is not held accountable for its misdeeds. No
one in corporate America is ever penalized for mis/malfeasances.So
corporate American does not work for me. It works to serve a very few already
wealthy individuals with an outsized voice in what happens in the country. I
don't think that your vituperative reaction to working Americans is in any
way analogous to what corporate America does to its shareholders and the public
You can be sure if Mitt Romney won the election that he would not be saying a
word on the issue. America is so fortunate we have a President who actively
encourages public debate on issues like this. Goverment can't affectively
legislate the problem but it can expose it, encourage debate and discuss the
issue with business leaders.
Watch the liberals line up to protect their money source. They must love the
current system, where they force conservatives to pay for democrat campaigns.Unions are supposed to work for the laborers. The laborers should have a
voice in what the unions do with the dues. Labor unions today abuse
the laborer to accomplish their own agenda, and many laborers are waking up to
this fact. It is time for some changes.
"This provision requires union officials to receive express written consent
from individual members before spending their dues on political
activities."I can wholeheartedly support this logic. But only
if it ALSO applies to corporations.Wouldn't the same logic and
rationale apply to corporations?Would Mr Hatch also want Corporate
Leadership to "receive express written consent from" stockholders (you
know, the people who actually own the corporation) before spending corporate
money on political activities?Why is this any different.Given both a Union AND a Corporate requirement, I think this is a great idea.
Surprise, surprise! The Deseret News runs a piece by a noted union buster. For
a different point of view please see my responses to "Ends and means: Do we
serve the economy, or does it serve us?" in this same issue of the News.I wish Senator Hatch were interested in protecting employees from their
FYI, the writer of this "editorial" is a lobbyist who, according to
Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, represents large special
interest groups and; "advocates against labor unions;
public-health advocates; and consumer, safety, animal welfare, and environmental
groups".We should get all sides an issue, but is this the sort
of "source" we want to get it from?
Busting unions has proved to increase the well being of American workers so well
for the last four decades, let's do some more. Unions power peaked in 1970
and has been declining ever since. Wages for working class men peaked in 1973
and have been declining ever since. Doesn't anyone else see a
correlation?On another point, does this guy write the same
anti-union, anti-worker column over and over again, or do some of the words get