Democrats Support Union Extortion

On the contrary...We need some tax reforms to ensure that the money they've been hiding from taxation is properly assessed.

CynicalBill wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: Ha ha ha ha..With everything thats going on in the world your big problem is people, other human beings making an additional $2.37 more and hour in a union shop as opposed to a non union shop? Thats your big f-ing problem? Sounds like a CEO's problem, sounds like Corporate Americas issue, not some low rent cracker in the foothills outside of Denvers.. How did they get you to argue for them?

Listen retard..We got a demand problem in this country...Industry is sitting on money, they are not investing it because there is no more demand for their product. When there is more demand they expand to meet the need-They are contracting right now, not hireing. That means there's not enough consumers, not enough money in OUR hands. Understand?

You dumb POS- you got it ass backwards again

Whats wrong VL, mommy not buy you your Fruity Pebbles today?

How does this retort fit into civil debate?

Soulshiner wrote:

CynicalBill wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: Ha ha ha ha..With everything thats going on in the world your big problem is people, other human beings making an additional $2.37 more and hour in a union shop as opposed to a non union shop? Thats your big f-ing problem? Sounds like a CEO's problem, sounds like Corporate Americas issue, not some low rent cracker in the foothills outside of Denvers.. How did they get you to argue for them?

Listen retard..We got a demand problem in this country...Industry is sitting on money, they are not investing it because there is no more demand for their product. When there is more demand they expand to meet the need-They are contracting right now, not hireing. That means there's not enough consumers, not enough money in OUR hands. Understand?

You dumb POS- you got it ass backwards again

Whats wrong VL, mommy not buy you your Fruity Pebbles today?

How does this retort fit into civil debate?

Did you read his idiot post? Why should anyone give this asshole any respect. I'm tired of being nice an civil....I'm all about giving back what others spew now.

Grady wrote:

Vice Lord wrote: ...Industry is sitting on money, they are not investing it because there is no more demand for their product. When there is more demand they expand to meet the need-They are contracting right now, not hireing. That means there's not enough consumers, not enough money in OUR hands. Understand?

You dumb POS- you got it ass backwards again

I'd bet good money that once Obama is out of office those companies that are sitting on all that cash will start expanding and hiring.

lol , believe me. If there's a demand, there will always be someone there to meet it. Do you know anything about human nature, about greed? If there's money to be made people will ALWAYS to make it. Just like water will always flows downhill. Wether it's drugs, porn or the latest crap from China.

CynicalBill wrote: Did you read his idiot post? Why should anyone give this asshole any respect. I'm tired of being nice an civil....I'm all about giving back what others spew now.

No more Mr Nice guy huh?

:roflol:

HEARTLESS wrote: archer, thats your opinion and we all know that "opinions are like a$$holes, everyone has one, but nobody wants to hear yours."

Guess I am the exception then cause I do want to hear her opinion as well as yours.

navycpo7, its a saying and I can't be credited with it, just repeating it. If we didn't want to hear what others think, we wouldn't enter these forums.

archer wrote: I'll have to get back to you on that for a definitive answer.....I really haven't read up on the situation. If, however, union members are losing jobs in WA so Boeing can move the plant to SC and hire cheaper workers, It may not be against the law, but it is morally wrong. IMHO. I would rather see the two parties work out their differences in WA. Or Boeing should offer the workers in WA those jobs in SC first.....I just think it sucks, be the workers union or not, that a company can hold workers hostage by moving the plant from higher wage states to lower wage states......is that any different than your claiming the unions are using extortion?

Archer my understanding of this, after I read the article is that, Boeing built the factory. SC gave them incentives. Those union folks in Washington are not loosing thier jobs. In this country, a company regardless if they have union people or not should be allowed to move to any state they want, open another factory, even if it is in a right to work state and hire non union employees. Especially right now as it means jobs. For the NLRB to attempt to try to stop this, and then try to government involved is wrong. They should have no say whatsoever in this. They do not have ownership of Boeing. This is where I have an issue with unions. The NLRB is trying to bully Boeing, and in the end it could even cost jobs instead of making jobs. Now if the move was going to cost jobs in Washington without giving those employees a choice of moving that I would also have a problem with. But then again this is my opinion only

HEARTLESS wrote: navycpo7, its a saying and I can't be credited with it, just repeating it. If we didn't want to hear what others think, we wouldn't enter these forums.

and that is the way I took it, that is why I responded like I did. It is all good

navycpo7 wrote:

archer wrote: I'll have to get back to you on that for a definitive answer.....I really haven't read up on the situation. If, however, union members are losing jobs in WA so Boeing can move the plant to SC and hire cheaper workers, It may not be against the law, but it is morally wrong. IMHO. I would rather see the two parties work out their differences in WA. Or Boeing should offer the workers in WA those jobs in SC first.....I just think it sucks, be the workers union or not, that a company can hold workers hostage by moving the plant from higher wage states to lower wage states......is that any different than your claiming the unions are using extortion?

Archer my understanding of this, after I read the article is that, Boeing built the factory. SC gave them incentives. Those union folks in Washington are not loosing thier jobs. In this country, a company regardless if they have union people or not should be allowed to move to any state they want, open another factory, even if it is in a right to work state and hire non union employees. Especially right now as it means jobs. For the NLRB to attempt to try to stop this, and then try to government involved is wrong. They should have no say whatsoever in this. They do not have ownership of Boeing. This is where I have an issue with unions. The NLRB is trying to bully Boeing, and in the end it could even cost jobs instead of making jobs. Now if the move was going to cost jobs in Washington without giving those employees a choice of moving that I would also have a problem with. But then again this is my opinion only

Navy, I agree with all that you posted, Like I posted, I really don't know the back history on this, and haven't taken the time to research it. I don't think the government, or the unions, or the NLRB should have the ability to stop a company from moving where ever it wants, for whatever reason they want. This is a free country, but I also think there is a moral issue here, and I don't like seeing workers in one state lose jobs because another state makes huge concessions to a company to get them to move there. No it's not illegal, but as a consumer, I would think twice about doing business with that company. (OK, I'm not buying any airplanes soon, but I think you can understand my point).

HEARTLESS....I found your comment tasteless.