- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Righties - if you had a choice between minimum wage and unions
Posted on 6/11/14 at 2:44 am to SoulGlo
Posted on 6/11/14 at 2:44 am to SoulGlo
Love how Tuba lets you know you're right by not replying to your post after you point out a rather large error in one of his many smarmy comments.
Then he carries on, "cherry picking" posts that cover his talking points.
Then he carries on, "cherry picking" posts that cover his talking points.
This post was edited on 6/11/14 at 3:36 am
1
Posted on 6/11/14 at 5:31 am to YipSkiddlyDooo
quote:
Love how Tuba lets you know you're right by not replying to your post after you point out a rather large error in one of his many smarmy comments.
Then he carries on, "cherry picking" posts that cover his talking points.
He only does that because he's a fat fricking idiot
Posted on 6/11/14 at 5:36 am to SpidermanTUba
The whole premise in your post that states can destroy unions at will and the characterization of right to work laws is laughable.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 5:50 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:Nice play on whiteys. Racist.
Righties
Unions, FWIW. Racist.
This post was edited on 6/11/14 at 5:52 am
Posted on 6/11/14 at 6:43 am to SpidermanTUba
1)
doesn't have as big of an impact on the supply and demand of labor as unions do I don't think.
doesn't have as big of an impact on the supply and demand of labor as unions do I don't think.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 6:49 am to catholictigerfan
1 would be the better small-government choice. Right to work laws and minimum wage laws both restrict freedom of contract. If a business wants to cut a deal with SEIU or UAW or whoever, and only hire union members, they should have that right.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 7:00 am to Malik Agar
quote:
I'll take both if that means you never post here again
He's a classic dem sheeple.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 7:32 am to SpidermanTUba
Unions do nothing but raise the cost of goods and services. I'd take right to work and maybe increase minimum wage slightly. If people working minimum wage jobs don't like the pay, get training and find a better job. Right now industry can't find skilled workers. I have a son who just finished high school a few weeks ago and got hired immediately as an electrical apprentice at $11 an hour and the company is paying for him to go through the trade school at night for 4 years. The wages and work are out there if people get off their asses and are willing to work.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 7:59 am to Vols&Shaft83
quote:90% of the board concurs, but why the ad hominem?
You know you're a fat fricking idiot, right?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 8:10 am to SpidermanTUba
I want 1 if there is no government intervention in a business decision regarding unionization. Abolishing minimum wage and letting workers bargain for higher wages is how it was supposed to be in a free market
Posted on 6/11/14 at 8:11 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
(invalidating so called "right to work" laws, which are really just right to freeload laws)
What do you mean by this?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 8:41 am to double d
quote:
Right now industry can't find skilled workers
That's idiocracy level bullshite, right there. If you offer enough compensation then supply will meet demand.
quote:
I have a son who just finished high school a few weeks ago and got hired immediately as an electrical apprentice at $11 an hour and the company is paying for him to go through the trade school at night for 4 years.
Nothing wrong with that, but it seems low. I thought skilled trade folks got paid more. I was a pipe fitter before I went to college but that was back in the late 90's. I made $9/hr in Baton Rouge but it was a union job. They actually paid apprentices less than non-union did but the deal was that training was included and of course all the benefits and knowing that journeymen got paid more. The union thing was great because it was like a hiring agency where I could hit turnarounds/projects and work for different companies but still be consistent. You might work six 10's on one big project and then get a few weeks off before the next one.
I made $28/hr in Seattle in 2000 before being diagnosed with tay-sachs. They had a lot of projects going and wages went up to meet the demand for labor.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 9:07 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Choose-
1) A Constitutional amendment protecting the right of businesses and unions to form union shop agreements (invalidating so called "right to work" laws, which are really just right to freeload laws) - AND - a Constitutional amendment abolishing minimum wage laws.
-OR-
2) Raising the minimum wage to $12/hour and indexing it to inflation, while maintaining the status quo on unions (allowing states to effectively destroy them at will).
I would personally choose 1. With strong unions minimum wages laws aren't really needed.
I would choose neither. I like the whole free market idea and would prefer to set my own wages (if I owned a business) instead of being ordered what to pay my own employees. Ill pay more if I can afford and/or want better quality employees.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 9:38 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
2) Raising the minimum wage to $12/hour and indexing it to inflation, while maintaining the status quo on unions (allowing states to effectively destroy them at will)
I guess this. Look, it's that I oppose minimum wage increases to be a dick, it's that they don't work for the greater good. Unions run unchecked have a far greater negative impact.
If given the choice, B gives you greater unemployment, more automation, and fewer jobs for youth. That's better than completely destabilizing the economy.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 9:51 am to SpidermanTUba
TUba--I would take #1, but with these changes:
1. NO forced deductions for political contributions.
2. NO contracts longer than five years (three is preferable).
3. Prior to the expiration of any contract, a mandatory vote whether to keep or decertify the union, with voting handled by a neutral third party and expenses paid equally between the union and the employer. (In the case of a multi-employer contract, each employer vote stands on its own.)
4. If any union is de-certified, must wait five years before any new vote to join a union takes place (same voting rules as to keep the union).
1. NO forced deductions for political contributions.
2. NO contracts longer than five years (three is preferable).
3. Prior to the expiration of any contract, a mandatory vote whether to keep or decertify the union, with voting handled by a neutral third party and expenses paid equally between the union and the employer. (In the case of a multi-employer contract, each employer vote stands on its own.)
4. If any union is de-certified, must wait five years before any new vote to join a union takes place (same voting rules as to keep the union).
This post was edited on 6/11/14 at 9:57 am
Posted on 6/11/14 at 9:55 am to SpidermanTUba
the one where the government isn't involved in helping to set the price of labor.
oh wait..
oh wait..
Posted on 6/11/14 at 9:56 am to Asgard Device
quote:
I thought skilled trade folks got paid more.
quote:
electrical apprentice
wut
Posted on 6/11/14 at 10:01 am to 90proofprofessional
quote:
quote:
I thought skilled trade folks got paid more.
quote:
electrical apprentice
wut
Electricians are no longer considered to be skilled? Damn.
Posted on 6/11/14 at 10:04 am to Asgard Device
While apprentices?
Posted on 6/11/14 at 10:10 am to SpidermanTUba
Why do we need a constitutional amendment to protect unions?
Are they against the law somewhere????
OH--you want unions to tell citizens they can't work somewhere without paying them!! I got it. You want to give unions the right to extort money from people and build golf courses and such with the money.
LINK
Are they against the law somewhere????
OH--you want unions to tell citizens they can't work somewhere without paying them!! I got it. You want to give unions the right to extort money from people and build golf courses and such with the money.
LINK
This post was edited on 6/11/14 at 10:12 am
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News