Replies

“Why are you sympathizing with these enemies of our Republic? “

Because I think wage busting is as big an enemy as unions. There wouldn’t be unions had they not become necassary. To a large degree they’ve outlived their usefullness.
Any CEO will tell you straight out that their only goal is to make money, if that means outsourcing then they outsource, if it means paying substandard wages and they can get away with it then they do that as well.

I heard the outsource argument that said companies moved overseas because unions broke them, but if it were just about pay and bennies why not just move to a right to work state.
The middle class is largely gone and that’s not going to come back if the policy is that large Corps can pay whatever they feel like paying the workers.

It may seem radical to you but I believe that somebody working a fulltime job is justified in having a reasonable expectation that they can feed, clothe, and house themselves.
Not in grand style, but where they don’t still need assistance.

BTW I thought a lot of posts on this thread were more than anti union, they were anti working people.
Go forward with that message and see how many people it converts to any conservative cause.

Why are you sympathizing with these enemies of our Republic?

Because I think wage busting is as big an enemy as unions.

McDonalds was founded on the premise high school age kids would be employed there. It was not founded on the idea a man or woman would come to work there and support a family on that level salary.

This was never about wage busting. It was about a business model that adults decided to crash, and now complain about. There is a considerable difference.

McDonalds didn't just come under new management. Their policies didn't just change overnight. They are doing what they have always done. There was a reason why they established this model decades ago. I think the model still applies. I don't think they're pulling the wool over anyone's eyes here.

I don't see them as an enemy of the people, are any descriptive labeling that comes close to that.

There wouldn’t be unions had they not become necassary. To a large degree they’ve outlived their usefullness.

I pretty much agree with the first sentence here. As for the second, here's how I would have stated it. ~~To a large degree~~ they’ve outlived their usefullness. Worse yet, they've become a massive destructive force globally.

Any CEO will tell you straight out that their only goal is to make money, if that means outsourcing then they outsource, if it means paying substandard wages and they can get away with it then they do that as well.

Okay, and here's the example that contrasts with the McDonald's model. The jobs that were outsourced, were jobs that adults did traditionally take. They WERE supposed to support families. And that's why I call one evil, and don't the other. We became a nation second to none with jobs that supported families. What has happened since? We sold ourselves out here. It's painfully obvious.

Families weren't going bust before we started outsourcing. Manufacturing workers were able to purchase the goods made in the United States. They were also able to afford a home, clothe and feed their families. They were able to purchase the family vehicle. Their salaries contributed to the community they were spent in. Those familes were not a drain on society. Can we say the same thing about service workers today? Perhaps so if people really struggle. In many instances the answer is no.

With McDonalds we didn't see a trade out of manufacturing level wages with minimum wages. With manufacturing we did see that type of a swap out. Manufacturing jobs paid a decent salary, and service jobs generally don't. We in effect sold out the guy down the block, so a guy in China could work in his place. There's no comparison to this model, when you look at what has been the model at McDonalds since the first unit's doors opened.

I heard the outsource argument that said companies moved overseas because unions broke them, but if it were just about pay and bennies why not just move to a right to work state.

There were instances of this. I believe the steel industry and the vehicle manufacturing industries are good examples. For the lions share of manufacturing moved off-shore, that wasn't the case. Moving to a 'right to work state' wasn't really going to accomplish anything in most instances. They already had a non-union shop.

The middle class is largely gone and that’s not going to come back if the policy is that large Corps can pay whatever they feel like paying the workers.

In some instances I have more sympathy towards your agument here, than I do in others. The McDonalds model doesn't support your emphasis here. It's model was never intended to support families. The Walmart model would be a much better claim IMO. That being said, it's a very tough call for me to accept that 'Here it is, please pay on the way out' is as worthy of manufacturing wages as 'incorporating proper engineering and manufacturing requirements into your work process' would be. In one you're a part of the creative process. In the other, you're simply a gopher.

It may seem radical to you but I believe that somebody working a fulltime job is justified in having a reasonable expectation that they can feed, clothe, and house themselves. Not in grand style, but where they don’t still need assistance.

In some instances I am more sympathetic to your claim here. In others, there's no possibility I'm going to agree with you. And I have to say, that I see a return of manufacturing to the United States, to be much more prefferable than simply artificially paying people with no hand in the creative process, the same wages as someone who did, or more acurately, would have.

Increasing the wages of people outside the creative process, becomes the worst of all worlds. We move the jobs off-short to decrease costs. We lose the manufacturing jobs, we hand over the proprietary patent information, in short order we lose R&D, and then we pay people the same salary for doing nothing that is creative. And then you have the union which has jumped in with both socialist feet, dictating to employers and the employees, helping to elect the worst socialist (read that enemy of our nation, and in Obama's case way beyond just socialist) they can find.

And if you look at this clearly focused, you'll note that the union who professes to want to help the family unit on the front end, is using almost all it's energy to devise and implement policies that will destroy every right of parents and thus the family units.

BTW I thought a lot of posts on this thread were more than anti union, they were anti working people.

And ultimately, you may see my comments that way too. If you do, I can't help that. As citizens you and I are supposed to advocate for sound policy. That's what I'm trying to do.

Go forward with that message and see how many people it converts to any conservative cause.

It IS NOT the duty of the Conservative cause to become socialist to win converts.

It IS the duty of the Conservative cause to find ways to explain sound policy, so that it will make so much sense to people that they will be unable to support anything else by the conviction of their own concience.

We simply cannot read the failure of us to do our job, as proof positive that we must abandon reason, and adopt the tenets of anarchy.

It's sad, but we have become like the new employee who states, "That's too hard. I can't possibly do it that way. You need to change that." Then once he's trained properly, "He says, now I understand. This isn't hard at all, and I understand why you asked me to do it that way in the first place."

It's time we went back to the drawing board. We're failing our task. We need to be trained properly, and we need to put in a lot of overtime.