This is a very interesting story.
I believe that unions are necessary, but I also think that much of the time they actually hurt the members.
Wages and benefits can not be as good as they were in the 70's and 80's...they just can't.
Especially in manufacturing jobs, unions have to give in or nobody has a job. Which is better, lower wages and less benefits, or unemployment?
Look at the airlines, and look at how many factories close in the North...its mostly cause of the unions...and the fact that other countries can do it cheaper...
I also look at Walmart, they are so successful and can hire so many people because they do not have a union...
I'm not saying if Walmart had a union they couldn't be successful, but not the way unions are run today...Today they would ask for too many benefits, too high a wage, and then yes...the company would not be able to expand as much, and there would be less jobs.
So, do you think unions are to blame for many of the losses in different sectors of business?
It is all the companies fault?
Maybe we can just blame this one on Bush as well...
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Harley to expand if union concedes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
"I believe that unions are necessary.."
I don't. Here is a good article by Thomas Sowell, one of America's top intellectuals, explaining why.
:)
Is that the same Thomas Sowell who this month said,
"the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.
That question also needs to be asked about the media. In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" -- actually a desk job in Virginia -- and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages."
"This is the frivolous media -- and the biased media."
But who in 1998 said,
"Monica Lewinsky reportedly broke down in tears in her attorney's office while being rehearsed in the kinds of questions to expect in the grand jury room. For six months she has been under heavy pressure, as she tried to protect the president who called her "that woman."
"It would have been so much easier for Clinton than for her to have admitted what happened and spared everyone six disgusting months. His admission could have been in general terms, without having to go into gory details in a roomful of strangers, as Monica Lewinsky has had to do."
Same guy?
Jim--
Yes. Sowell is one of the most thoughtful people alive in the United States today. One can't expect illiterate liberals to read, let alone own books. That's why bumper-sticker slogans and rhetorical questions have replaced careful argument in liberal circles. The adversary posture is all that counts to consider yourself enlightened; even comedians like Stephen Colbert are considered geniuses by liberals in this respect.
Back to your ad hominem about Sowell. A person can be simultaneously wrong on one issue, like medicare, and correct on another issue, like defense. There is nothing illogical about this-- refuting someone like Bush on faith-based initiatives does not in itself invalidate what he says on economic policy. So even *if* your point about Sowell exposes an incoherency in his judgment with regard to sexual scandals, one would not be able to invalidate his entire body of work based on a single event.
That being said, I don't see the incoherency, since Foley resigned. Clinton did not. I'm not sliming all Democrats because they ***reelect*** people like Barney Frank who run prostitution rings from their homes, but perhaps I should apply your standard and do so.
glad this thread is about unions...:(
Dear Jason, look up the term ad hominem and become educated.
Also look up the word lie. It's when you say something you know to be wrong. I have more than once refuted the Barney Frank prostitution ring lie on this blog, yet you continue to use it.
Also, I'm not sure, but I've probably read and donated more books to the library than you've read in your lifetime. I also own an extensive library. I read several hours a day. Many of the most brilliant, well-read, and respected people in the world are liberal.
Someone who would falsely stereotype liberals as illiterate could be an ignorant bigot who hates Americans.
Unions failed the country the day they became just as conservative as the corporations they opposed. Nothing progressive or liberal comes out of unions anymore....except some votes.
Jim--
A rebuttal is not a refutation. How one cannot know that a friend is running a bisexual prostitution service from your abode simply defies imagination. Has that ever happened to you? Not like Democrats disapprove; Gerry Studds received standing ovations from Congressional Democrats for his avant-garde sexual behavior when he had sex with an underage page.
Now, the way you attacked Sowell is unfortunately too often your modus operandi when you post here. You can't disprove things by attacking people, and that is precisely what you attempted to do. Sowell's criticism of Clinton, justfied or not, has nothing to do with his valid and carefully argued position on unions.
As far as reading, I'll give you credit for not being a slob like Michael Moore that openly admits he watches 5-6 hours of television a day. Though if you are reading people like Chomsky who think Western Civilization is grand conspiracy, you are probably worse off, despite the views of trendy morons like Matt Damon.
Never read Chomsky.
I did not "attack" Sowell. I merely cast aspersions on your claim that he was one of America's top intellectuals.
You seem to use the Bill O'Reilly logic. If I quote someone, I'm attacking them.
Once again, Frank claims that he threw out his roommate as soon as he found out about the prostitution ring. There is not one shred of evidence to disprove his claim. That is a refutation, not a rebuttal.
jim said something that is correct...liberals are either people who didn't even get a high school degree and have no job..or people with Ph.D's...everything inbetween is Republican...I have shown the stats from many different elections on this blog...so it is a fact
I would like to know why that is...
Jim,
You mean you "tried" to cast aspersions. I don't see where your examples show any contradiction at all. One shows the frivolousness of the media, the other shows the low class of Clinton. What are YOU seeing?
But I have to say that I think unions have long ago lost their direction. Too many questionable ties to shady characters, too many union workers doing nothing and being protected from discipline, and no real support for employees when they need it.
Not so Marshall. In one Sowell asserts that the media spends its effort on frivolous matters and in the other he demonstrates his own participation in frivolous matters.
Post a Comment