|
|
Post by TonyV on Oct 11, 2012 11:22:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 15, 2012 18:27:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 15, 2012 19:57:09 GMT -5
Its their choice of whom to vote for but its no secret that Obama and his changes will cost business and workers more money and since no one knows those costs who do you think will take the brunt of it?
Businesses do not eat cost, it gets passed on to the customer or comes out of employee wages & benefits. Romney is viewed as more business friendly / knowledgeable and those same businesses employ people.
Obama had 4 years to tinker with the jobs market and his "record" is now up for a vote. Hopefully Obama is unemployed in the new year.
|
|
|
|
Post by fordworker95 on Oct 15, 2012 22:15:52 GMT -5
Its their choice of whom to vote for but its no secret that Obama and his changes will cost business and workers more money and since no one knows those costs who do you think will take the brunt of it? Businesses do not eat cost, it gets passed on to the customer or comes out of employee wages & benefits. Romney is viewed as more business friendly / knowledgeable and those same businesses employ people. Obama had 4 years to tinker with the jobs market and his "record" is now up for a vote. Hopefully Obama is unemployed in the new year. WOW you drank all the TEA of the right wing  |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 15, 2012 22:20:10 GMT -5
Its their choice of whom to vote for but its no secret that Obama and his changes will cost business and workers more money and since no one knows those costs who do you think will take the brunt of it? Businesses do not eat cost, it gets passed on to the customer or comes out of employee wages & benefits. Romney is viewed as more business friendly / knowledgeable and those same businesses employ people. Obama had 4 years to tinker with the jobs market and his "record" is now up for a vote. Hopefully Obama is unemployed in the new year. WOW you drank all the TEA of the right wing No, just better at math than you. |
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 15, 2012 22:21:52 GMT -5
why is this a story? unions tell us who to vote for and why, but its bad if a business does the same?
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 15, 2012 22:49:35 GMT -5
why is this a story? unions tell us who to vote for and why, but its bad if a business does the same? Good question. Some people like to be told what to do, and like it. |
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 15, 2012 23:18:30 GMT -5
why is this a story? unions tell us who to vote for and why, but its bad if a business does the same? Good question. Some people like to be told what to do, and like it. its almost like the media has an agenda. |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 15, 2012 23:20:17 GMT -5
Good question. Some people like to be told what to do, and like it. its almost like the media has an agenda. The hell you say! They are busy getting to the bottom of the Libya mix-up. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 15, 2012 23:31:33 GMT -5
First they were using legislation to keep the unwanted from voting. Now, corporate intimidation.
If we're going to allow a few to use whatever methods they see fit to get the results they want, why bother wasting money on the election process in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 15, 2012 23:55:58 GMT -5
First they were using legislation to keep the unwanted from voting. Now, corporate intimidation. If we're going to allow a few to use whatever methods they see fit to get the results they want, why bother wasting money on the election process in the first place. "the unwanted from voting"...are you talking about the troops stationed overseas? and LOL at the corporate intimidation, you think thats intimidation? look, Bo. i don't agree at all with the unions politics. but i am glad that they distribute their point of view to me. and if my company wants to tell me whats likely to happen from their point of view, i would be glad to read that as well. |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 16, 2012 0:41:28 GMT -5
First they were using legislation to keep the unwanted from voting. Now you are speaking clearly.....out of your ass. I cant wait to hear an example. |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 16, 2012 0:48:57 GMT -5
Suggesting that voting one way or the other is in someones best interest is fine. An employer telling people, if the election does not go the way they want, then a reduction in the workforce will happen as a result is intimidation.
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 16, 2012 0:57:20 GMT -5
Suggesting that voting one way or the other is in someones best interest is fine. An employer telling people, if the election does not go the way they want, then a reduction in the workforce will happen as a result is intimidation. ok, i am gonna guess it would be equally as bad as a labor leader stating that romney would destroy unions....but we don't get the outrage from the media about that. why not? |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Oct 16, 2012 1:38:35 GMT -5
An employer telling people, if the election does not go the way they want, then a reduction in the workforce will happen as a result is intimidation. More like a result of basic mathematics. You are going to give "free" health care to 30~40 million that can not afford it or chooses not to obtain it and how is that going to lower the cost to everyone else  That's similar to giving free postage to the same number of people and telling me the price of my stamp will go down. Yea, right. That's real money and it comes from somewhere....... |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 16, 2012 1:52:38 GMT -5
Simple
A group saying that someone else is going to do something if X is elected is typical election season propaganda.
An individual telling a group, if X is elected I'm going to fire/reduce people is a statement of intent in response to an undesired result. That is intimidation. That is a direct threat to the livelihood and well-being of all of the employees and their families.
Hopefully action will be taken against these people before the election to reassure voters this type of intimidation will not be tolerated.
|
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 16, 2012 2:00:12 GMT -5
Simple A group saying that someone else is going to do something if X is elected is typical election season propaganda. An individual telling a group, if X is elected I'm going to fire/reduce people is a statement of intent in response to an undesired result. That is intimidation. That is a direct threat to the livelihood and well-being of all of the employees and their families. Hopefully action will be taken against these people before the election to reassure voters this type of intimidation will not be tolerated. bo, thats in no way what the koch letter stated. in fact, the koch letter used the same rhetoric that union leaders use from the other side. look at the things hoffa says about a romney election. |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 16, 2012 4:35:41 GMT -5
Right wing tea lol good grief you guys are blind.
fordworker95 what is tea about saying cost of doing business will go up because of Obama and business will pass the cost to us?What is not true about this?
|
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 16, 2012 6:31:12 GMT -5
Simple A group saying that someone else is going to do something if X is elected is typical election season propaganda. An individual telling a group, if X is elected I'm going to fire/reduce people is a statement of intent in response to an undesired result. That is intimidation. That is a direct threat to the livelihood and well-being of all of the employees and their families. Hopefully action will be taken against these people before the election to reassure voters this type of intimidation will not be tolerated. bo, thats in no way what the koch letter stated. in fact, the koch letter used the same rhetoric that union leaders use from the other side. look at the things hoffa says about a romney election. I don't know stating "suffer the consequences" sounds pretty damning. Of course, it is possible the article could have cherry picked and used the statements out of context similar to the way bulldognuts' recent article on climate change did. If we can get our hands on the full unedited letters we could make a more informed decision. Now the article from tonyv looks more solid, and david siegal looks like it was hands down an intimidation attempt. That will be much harder to ignore. |
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 16, 2012 13:53:40 GMT -5
bo, thats in no way what the koch letter stated. in fact, the koch letter used the same rhetoric that union leaders use from the other side. look at the things hoffa says about a romney election. I don't know stating "suffer the consequences" sounds pretty damning. Of course, it is possible the article could have cherry picked and used the statements out of context similar to the way bulldognuts' recent article on climate change did. If we can get our hands on the full unedited letters we could make a more informed decision. Now the article from tonyv looks more solid, and david siegal looks like it was hands down an intimidation attempt. That will be much harder to ignore. but you seem to find it easy to ignore james hoffa. |
|
|
|
Post by fordworker95 on Oct 16, 2012 13:53:41 GMT -5
Right wing tea lol good grief you guys are blind. fordworker95 what is tea about saying cost of doing business will go up because of Obama and business will pass the cost to us?What is not true about this? Marcus,I am not a liberal or a republican,I don't agree with either party 100 %.The conservative right wants no middle class in my opinion.They prefer trickle down economics because the majority of monies stay at the top.In my lifetime the most middle of the road potus we have had was Bill Clinton.These politicians who are far left or far right imho are the ones killing the middle class and the economy.I see the Koch's and Romney as TOO far right for me.So I understand the rhetoric they put out,to protect there own interest.They care about themselves,not the majority of Americans.The tea party folks are the same in this respect.They care only about there specific agenda NOT the majority.Collective bargaining is the only way YOU and I have a chance to be a part of the middle class.The republicans and tea party folks don't believe we should have that option,so I can't support there position. |
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 16, 2012 14:18:52 GMT -5
Right wing tea lol good grief you guys are blind. fordworker95 what is tea about saying cost of doing business will go up because of Obama and business will pass the cost to us?What is not true about this? Marcus,I am not a liberal or a republican,I don't agree with either party 100 %.The conservative right wants no middle class in my opinion.They prefer trickle down economics because the majority of monies stay at the top.In my lifetime the most middle of the road potus we have had was Bill Clinton.These politicians who are far left or far right imho are the ones killing the middle class and the economy.I see the Koch's and Romney as TOO far right for me.So I understand the rhetoric they put out,to protect there own interest.They care about themselves,not the majority of Americans.The tea party folks are the same in this respect.They care only about there specific agenda NOT the majority.Collective bargaining is the only way YOU and I have a chance to be a part of the middle class.The republicans and tea party folks don't believe we should have that option,so I can't support there position. ,-Their-and-They're i agree with you that neither extreme cares about the middle class. but do you think the obama camp does? |
|
|
|
Post by bo862 on Oct 16, 2012 18:49:59 GMT -5
I don't know stating "suffer the consequences" sounds pretty damning. Of course, it is possible the article could have cherry picked and used the statements out of context similar to the way bulldognuts' recent article on climate change did. If we can get our hands on the full unedited letters we could make a more informed decision. Now the article from tonyv looks more solid, and david siegal looks like it was hands down an intimidation attempt. That will be much harder to ignore. but you seem to find it easy to ignore james hoffa. Not at all, but I'm not googling hoffa and reading everything on the net that he has said (i dont keep up with hoffa). You have made a fairly specific claim. Therefore you should be able to google his statement and provide a link. |
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Oct 17, 2012 1:56:38 GMT -5
but you seem to find it easy to ignore james hoffa. Not at all, but I'm not googling hoffa and reading everything on the net that he has said (i dont keep up with hoffa). You have made a fairly specific claim. Therefore you should be able to google his statement and provide a link. sure, i could provide a link of hoffa claiming ronney wants to annihaliate unions. but what good would that do? if you are curious, i am sure you have google. |
|
|
|
Post by justaworker on Nov 6, 2012 17:03:05 GMT -5
|
|
