Why are Republicans out to destroy Public Unions?

[Moonbeam]

What's the motivation? Why shouldn't public service be rewarded? Shouldn't labor be allowed to bargain?

 

[Genx87]

Why wouldnt they? Public unions overwhelmingly give money to Democrats, their primary opponent.

 

[nehalem256]

Why wouldnt they? Public unions overwhelmingly give money to Democrats, their primary opponent.

:thumbsup:

Which of course is why Wall Street give money to both Democrats and Republicans.

It is hard to lose when you play both sides of the board.

 

[dank69]

Why wouldnt they? Public unions overwhelmingly give money to Democrats, their primary opponent.

So Republicans didn't oppose public unions until unions started donating to Democrats?

 

[Moonbeam]

Why wouldnt they? Public unions overwhelmingly give money to Democrats, their primary opponent.

Then why don't they simply go after union dues and get THEM lowered. Why reduce wages when higher wages mean a better economy and the rich get richer.

 

[Genx87]

So Republicans didn't oppose public unions until unions started donating to Democrats?

I dont know the history of it nor do I care when it comes to this thread. He asked, I provided my opinion on why they are going after public unions. The most obvious to me is they want to cut funding to their opponents. Do you disagree?

 

[Genx87]

Then why don't they simply go after union dues and get THEM lowered. Why reduce wages when higher wages mean a better economy and the rich get richer.

They are, they are telling the public unions say good bye to dues all together.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why reduce wages when higher wages mean a better economy and the rich get richer.

Since when do higher wages without a commensurate increase in production lead to a better economy?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

What's the motivation?

Lower taxes. This isn't complicated.

 

[Steeplerot]

The conservative is always out to kiss ass to whatever aristocracy (corporations nowadays)is in power since their reactionary mindset tells them rich = blessed/superior.

Unions question the foundation of their belief system by providing the average worker power. Workers should know their "place"!

Thus unions are heretical to conservatisms little cult of kissing the rich's ass hoping one day the elites will include them.

"useful idiots" is a lot simpler description. They are cultural throwbacks from the age of serfdom and reaction hyped up on the endless mass media stream of self reinforcing propaganda happily provided to them by the establishment.

 

[cybrsage]

Mostly because public unions ensure you have to keep the crappy employees employed. The union protects those who should be removed. This is the same for private unions, too.

IMO, if unions simply policed their own and ensured the crappy ones were gotten rid of, everyone would want to have unions around.

 

[nehalem256]

Mostly because public unions ensure you have to keep the crappy employees employed. The union protects those who should be removed. This is the same for private unions, too.

IMO, if unions simply policed their own and ensured the crappy ones were gotten rid of, everyone would want to have unions around.

Well and they are in the way of cutting taxes. And they donate millions of dollars to their opponent.

 

[Craig234]

Biggest reason is to reduce the funding of Democrats by unions, by weakening them.

Second is to attack the wages of the middle class, increasing the share at the top.

Third is for the splash effect lowering wages for other workers, helping their donors the owners.

Somewhere after those is some idea that public workers just shouldn't have unions - for the reasons in the FDR quote they like to mention.

 

[BoomerD]

Republicans aren't just out to do away with the public employee unions...they want to eliminate or at least reduce their overall strength.

All you have to do is see the various "Right to Work" laws and other laws that have been either passed or proposed to see their attacks on the working people of this country.

"Right to Work" should be more correctly called "Right to Work for Less," because in almost every case, once it's passed into law, the wages and benefits of the unionized workers in the state start to drop.

 

[Phokus]

Since when do higher wages without a commensurate increase in production lead to a better economy?

Except we do have higher production/productivity... except the fruits from those gains go mostly to the very top.

 

[BoberFett]

Why do Democrats want to destroy unions by ignoring illegal immigration and driving entire industries to use illegally imported labor forces?

 

[Throckmorton]

Since when do higher wages without a commensurate increase in production lead to a better economy?

Production is higher than ever before, wages have gone down for everyone but the richest since Reagan was elected, and the economy sucks.

 

[Phokus]

Lower taxes. This isn't complicated.

Nah, it's more of a divide and conquer strategy. First go for the public unions, then go after the private unions afterwards. Scott Walker basically admitted as much.

 

[QuantumPion]

I bet if a major corporation used political contributions to get got a law passed that said that everyone in the state that works in their industry must work for their company, and employees must pay mandatory 5% cut of their paycheck automatically deducted to be used for political contributions which 100% of went to republicans which passed those very laws, Democrats would be up in arms and calling for laws banning such a blatantly corrupt and unfair practice.

 

[Moonbeam]

Since when do higher wages without a commensurate increase in production lead to a better economy?

Aren't the folk who increase productivity the ones the unions bargain with? Workers work as they are trained to. It is the job of the employer to increase productivity. If productivity isn't going up, cut their salaries, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

Lower taxes. This isn't complicated.

It's not. If it's really simple why not just close the fire department of shut down the police. Huge savings there. Or just do away with taxes altogether. If you like simple, I'm at your service.

 

[Throckmorton]

Aren't the folk who increase productivity the ones the unions bargain with? Workers work as they are trained to. It is the job of the employer to increase productivity. If productivity isn't going up, cut their salaries, no?

According to conservatives, capitalists and businessmen are responsible for wealth creation, productivity, and the progress of modern society. But when it comes to wages it's the worker who's responsible for productivity. Oh, except for wages being determined by individual bargaining power on the free market.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why do Democrats want to destroy unions by ignoring illegal immigration and driving entire industries to use illegally imported labor forces?

That would make a nice different thread.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I bet if a major corporation used political contributions to get got a law passed that said that everyone in the state that works in their industry must work for their company, and employees must pay mandatory 5% cut of their paycheck automatically deducted to be used for political contributions which 100% of went to republicans which passed those very laws, Democrats would be up in arms and calling for laws banning such a blatantly corrupt and unfair practice.

Yep. And that's why I have mixed feelings on the issue of public unions.

They do serve important roles. But there is something inherently messed up about how they operate.

 

[Moonbeam]

Production is higher than ever before, wages have gone down for everyone but the richest since Reagan was elected, and the economy sucks.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Poker.