Green is the color for me....?

[Sam Spade]

My experience of living and working in Texas and living and working in Maryland has reminded me time and time again why unions are a bad thing.

It's one of the places where I really disagree with the present-day Democrat party big-time and I hold my Southern right-to-work beliefs very strong.

Supersoulty and Zebulon Vance correctly point out the reasons why I believe what I do.

[Bono]

My experience of living and working in Texas and living and working in Maryland has reminded me time and time again why unions are a bad thing.

It's one of the places where I really disagree with the present-day Democrat party big-time and I hold my Southern right-to-work beliefs very strong.

Supersoulty and Zebulon Vance correctly point out the reasons why I believe what I do.

Zebulon is States.

[Platypus]

Welcome to the fold. but in the immortal words of our sage and leader, Kermit D. Frog, "It's not easy being Green".

[Gabu]

Welcome to the fold. but in the immortal words of our sage and leader, Kermit D. Frog, "It's not easy being Green".

What do you mean?  Just a little while ago during the height of partisanship in the Fantasy Elections forum you were reveling in how easy Independents had it.

[Frodo]

I can no longer consider myself a Republican.  It is my believe that the party and its rank and file are too anti labor and anti poor for me to maintain my loyalty.  Too many Repub. legislators and members see unions as something to be eradicated (something my parents, grandparents ad infinitum fought and some died to found) and too many see poverty as a communicable disease.  There are many other policies I do not agree with as well.  I have no ideology now, only some ideas about issues.

I never understood why you were a Republican anyway, you were populist and pro-union and hardly socially conservative.

Probably my intense dislike for liberals:)

like me, you are socially tolerant and accepting, as well as an economic populist...that is modern-day liberalism as i understand it.  i hate to break it to ya, but that makes you a liberal too.

[Platypus]

No I wasn't, I was saying how much more opportunity independents had to actually do stuff for themselves and for their constituents.

[dazzleman]

patrick1, I have always considered you to be a mainstream Republican, regardless of what these liberals here are telling you.  And I have detected no real trace of liberalism in you, despite the fact that you like to frequent strip clubs.

This issue needs to be looked at from a couple of different angles.  I have always believed that results, not intentions, are what matters.  And the results of different party positions and policies are not black and white for any group of people.

Democrats talk a good game about protecting workers' rights, unions, etc.  The real question is, are these the things that will really help the working and middle class today, or are they a form of clinging to a past that can't be brought back, and therefore harmful in adjusting to new conditions?

I have long observed that Democratic policies appeal more to the emotions; Republican policies appeal more to the logic, in general.  While Democrats wax eloquent about things that can never be (economic equality), Republicans talk often in harsh terms about realities.  The basic Republican position on economics is that the greatest good for the largest number of people can be served by allowing a certain degree of economic inequality, because economic equality can only be achieved at very low levels of wealth.  This is the truth, and most Democrats also know it to be true, but they deny it in order to get votes.

When I look at the RESULTS of policies rather than intentions, it appears to me that Democratic policies have largely hurt the lower middle class.  Democratic softness on crime, and support for contrived and forced school integration efforts, have had a terrible effect on working class people economically unable to escape to wealthy suburbs.  That is the reality, whatever the beautiful rhetoric Democrats put out.  Working class people have been forced to remain in declining neighborhoods, deal with rising crime that was once not there, and pay twice for their kids' education to keep them out of increasingly violent public schools.  All these bad trends have come from policies advocated and strongly and stubbornly defended by the Democrats.

I would go so far as to say that liberal Democrats have chose working class whites as the people who are to pay for all the past "crimes" of the white race, while better off whites exempt themselves from the results of such policies.  No group of people has gotten f**ked over by the Democrats in a worse manner than working class whites, in my observation.

The real question all voters ask themselves is - are the rich more of a threat to me, or is the dysfunctionality of some of the poor population more of a threat to me?  Those who answer in the former usually vote Democratic; those who answer in the latter usually vote Republican.  The issue is not one of hostility toward the poor, but disfavor and disapproval of behavior patterns that can lead only to poverty.  Opposition to self-destructive behavior among the poor seems to me to be the biggest kindness possible toward those who are poor because of such behavior; support of such behavior is like enabling an alcoholic or drug user; superficially kind in the short run but cruel in the long run.

It will be interesting to see how your views progress as you go through the liberal indoctrination of your education classes, and then enter the real world of failing public schools.  Will you buy into the ideas expressed in your classes and in the establishment in which you will work, or will you be an independent thinker and see beyond the failed ideas expressed by these people to the real causes, and potential solutions, to the problems that are out there?

I'm pulling for you, man.  You've been one of my favorite Republicans here for a long time, one that I could relate to because of similarities in our backgrounds and geography (despite your derogatory comments about Connecticut, which never offended me).  I wish you great luck in your classes, and in your philosophical rethinking.

[Nym90]

Your lucky States. When I worked for a grocery store, the Union took 15% of my paycheck a month and I never got a damn thing in return.

Um, except job security, better working conditions, a safe workplace, better pay, small things like that.

Which, due to the existence of unions, most everyone gets nowadays, even if they aren't in a union. So yeah, people who aren't in unions have it made; they get many of the residual benefits of the existence of unions without having to pay for them directly.

Don't fool yourself. Things that we now take for granted today, and that even most Republicans strongly support, like the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, vacation time, quality health care, safety regulations, etc. were strenuously opposed by corporations, who claimed that they would destroy the American economy. None of these things ever would have come to be without unions.

[??????????]

Your lucky States. When I worked for a grocery store, the Union took 15% of my paycheck a month and I never got a damn thing in return.

Um, except job security, better working conditions, a safe workplace, better pay, small things like that.

Which, due to the existence of unions, most everyone gets nowadays, even if they aren't in a union. So yeah, people who aren't in unions have it made; they get many of the residual benefits of the existence of unions without having to pay for them directly.

Don't fool yourself. Things that we now take for granted today, and that even most Republicans strongly support, like the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, vacation time, quality health care, safety regulations, etc. were strenuously opposed by corporations, who claimed that they would destroy the American economy. None of these things ever would have come to be without unions.

My company has been provided such benefits since 1930. The so called height of Unions in the US.

[Nym90]

Your lucky States. When I worked for a grocery store, the Union took 15% of my paycheck a month and I never got a damn thing in return.

Um, except job security, better working conditions, a safe workplace, better pay, small things like that.

Which, due to the existence of unions, most everyone gets nowadays, even if they aren't in a union. So yeah, people who aren't in unions have it made; they get many of the residual benefits of the existence of unions without having to pay for them directly.

Don't fool yourself. Things that we now take for granted today, and that even most Republicans strongly support, like the 40 hour work week, overtime pay, vacation time, quality health care, safety regulations, etc. were strenuously opposed by corporations, who claimed that they would destroy the American economy. None of these things ever would have come to be without unions.

My company has been provided such benefits since 1930. The so called height of Unions in the US.

Most of them got started in the 1800's. The threat of unionization was almost certainly a major factor in them deciding to give out good benefits on their own.

I'm all for companies doing that. Unions are, at best, a necessary evil. The most ideal condition would be for a company to give their workers great working conditions without having to have a union. Obviously that's better than having to have a union, but it's just not realistic for most corporations.

[dazzleman]

Most of them got started in the 1800's. The threat of unionization was almost certainly a major factor in them deciding to give out good benefits on their own.

I'm all for companies doing that. Unions are, at best, a necessary evil. The most ideal condition would be for a company to give their workers great working conditions without having to have a union. Obviously that's better than having to have a union, but it's just not realistic for most corporations.

Eric, I agree with you.  There's no sense in being naive about this.  Companies treated their workers terribly, for the most part, before they had the pressure of unions.

I took a management class that said that unions represent a failure of management.  I agree with this.  If corporations treated their workers right, the workers never would have taken the huge risks they took to unionize.

Certain benefits, like sick leave, are now standard, whereas before they were unheard of.  Right now, I have every reason to be grateful for that, as I recuperate from my surgery on full pay.  Even today, not everybody gets that; sick leave is limited by most companies, but because of my tenure with the company, I have a long period during which I can receive full pay during my disability period.  If all goes well, I'll be back to work long before that's over.

I have my issues with unions, but I think we have to give credit where it is due.  But politics is about the future, not the past, and the question now is what policies are better for the greatest number of people going out into the future.  Unions have had a practice of clinging to the past and pricing some workers out of the market, while effectively discouraging them from developing the training that they need to do better under changed market conditions.  And I think most unions today are corrupt, and not really interested in the best interests of the workers.  They have done their job; we now need mostly to maintain the benefits that unions have brought, while eradicating some of the bad trends that unions have brought to the workplace, such as punishing star performers and rewarding mediocrity.