Should Electioneers and workers pay a fee?

[max1]

The problem isn't with campaign volunteers, but corporate donors and out-of-state donors meddling in local elections (like the recent Wisconsin recall).

Lets not forget who called for the election, and after all these years of the unions fucking John Q public now the tables are turned and we are going to piss and moan about it?

I'm not pointing you out COL but the prevailing attitude that unions are good just plain pisses me off.

[Grin]

Unions are only as good as their leadership. I believe the concept of workers being able to negotiate wages is a good one. Most of John Q. are workers, don't you think they're tired of being back doored by the corps?
Like most things political there needs to be a balance.

[childOfLacroix]

Lets not forget who called for the election, and after all these years of the unions fucking John Q public now the tables are turned and we are going to piss and moan about it?

I'm not pointing you out COL but the prevailing attitude that unions are good just plain pisses me off.

I have no opinion on the recall itself, or on Walker. Since I don't live in Wisconsin, I never felt the need to familiarize myself with the issues involved.

What did concern me were reports of out-of-state donor's funding Walker's--and, I'm assuming, his opponent's--campaign. I do not feel that out-of-state interests should meddle in local elections of any kind.

WRT unions, I'm not pro-union. My feeling is that so few jobs are unionized anymore that I don't consider them to be a big issue, except perhaps in a few select areas where they are still strong. From what I understand, Wisconsin is one of those areas, hence their role in that recall.

Conversely, during the Gray Davis recall in California--for which I was present, and I voted for Schwarzenegger--unions weren't an issue at all, because unions have little presence in California. People were enraged at Davis, and demanded the recall election, for other reasons. Businesses specifically were being crushed under the costs of the mega-corrupt workers' compensation system -- which had nothing at all to do with unions.

[childOfLacroix]

Unions are only as good as their leadership. I believe the concept of workers being able to negotiate wages is a good one. Most of John Q. are workers, don't you think they're tired of being back doored by the corps?
Like most things political there needs to be a balance.

Unions are like feminism. When they first began, they addressed real, serious issues, such as employees working under dangerous, even life-threatening conditions, while the businesses had little or no liability. If someone was killed on the job, the company wouldn't even pay to bury the body. Google "Triangle Shirtwaist Factory" for an idea of what workplaces were like back then. It was a completely different world.

However, we don't live in that world anymore, and over time, unions shifted from addressing real issues like workplace safety into grabbing power for themselves. That's one of the reasons why they've lost so much power. Workers realized that unions weren't fighting to benefit them anymore.

Unfortunately, I think we're headed back to the days of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory disaster, which wasn't good, either (and which wasn't a free market). This is what Americans claim they want, not a free market where businesses and employees both have rights and take risks, but a crony capitalistic market skewed in favor of businesses, where employees have no rights at all. When they get it, I don't know if they'll be able to stomach it.

[childOfLacroix]

I like what Jack Welch has to say about unions in this video, which was assigned viewing for one of my MBA classes:

http://video.mit.edu/watch/a-convers...arbeloff-9225/

It's something to the effect of, "Whenever there's a union being formed, there's a horse's ass of a manager." In other words, Welch feels that unionization is a sign of poor leadership at a company; happy employees don't have a desire to form unions.

[longnecker]

the prevailing attitude that unions are good just plain pisses me off.

There is no doubt that some unions have become way too powerful and and have forced some employers to go so far over the line with pensions and benies they are forcing prices up and out of competition and even bankruptcies. The other side of that is without unions the powerful would give the workers little or nothing. Seems to be a lose/lose situation.

[childOfLacroix]

I don't think we "need" unions. We just need employers and employees to be bound to the contracts they make with each other, and not skew general tort laws in favor of either party.

So, for example, if you agree to pay me x dollars for a job, you're bound to pay me that amount for doing the job; conversely, I'm bound to accept that amount as payment in full. You cannot withhold the pay; I cannot demand more than I originally agreed to.

Meanwhile, if you willingly or recklessly put me to work in a dangerous environment and I am injured or killed, you are liable to compensate me or my survivors for the injury or death. Likewise, if I create a dangerous situation that injures or kills you or others, I am liable for those injuries or deaths.

This isn't the way it was during the time of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The laws were not applied to both parties equally; they were skewed in favor of employers. Now they're skewed in favor of employees, and instead of seeking a free market where the laws would be equally applied, Americans appear to want to go back to skewing them in favor of employers.

We don't need unions to achieve a free-market balance. We just need contract and tort laws equally applied to both sides.

[longnecker]

I don't think we "need" unions. We just need employers and employees to be bound to the contracts they make with each other, and not skew general tort laws in favor of either party.

So, for example, if you agree to pay me x dollars for a job, you're bound to pay me that amount for doing the job; conversely, I'm bound to accept that amount as payment in full. You cannot withhold the pay; I cannot demand more than I originally agreed to.

Meanwhile, if you willingly or recklessly put me to work in a dangerous environment and I am injured or killed, you are liable to compensate me or my survivors for the injury or death. Likewise, if I create a dangerous situation that injures or kills you or others, I am liable for those injuries or deaths.

This isn't the way it was during the time of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire. The laws were not applied to both parties equally; they were skewed in favor of employers. Now they're skewed in favor of employees, and instead of seeking a free market where the laws would be equally applied, American Politicians appear to want to go back to skewing them in favor of employers.

We don't need unions to achieve a free-market balance. We just need contract and tort laws equally applied to both sides.

​Fixed it. You left that one word out.

[childOfLacroix]

But the majority of Americans were the ones who elected those politicians. Therefore, the majority who voted for them endorse their views.

This does not apply to those who did not vote, or those who supported candidates whose views differed.

[Tracy]

call me crazy, but it seems to me that all of this would make sense it everyone would agree to two things:
1. common sense
2. do the right thing