Romney targets unions

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Thomas Veil, Feb 19, 2012.

  1. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #1
    Seems like Romney and Santorum are trying to out-asshat each other this weekend -- though Romney sure chose a weird state in which to attack unions.

    I guess Romney's joining the revisionist bandwagon with his "unions served a purpose at one time" propaganda. I was disappointed to read further in the article that "right-to-work" laws (cripes, what a disingenuous name!) are actually popular. Looks like my state of Ohio is under threat of a law like that. I'm sure Kasich has it on his agenda.
     
  2. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #2
    Ahhh, well there isn't anything new about Republicans being anti-union, although his choice to take that angle in Michigan is........odd.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    I think these guys want to lose. They're so out of touch, it's almost unreal.
     
  4. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #4
    Unionized labor has been shrinking because it isn't popular to anyone besides union workers. Inflating the worth of those who are easily replaceable and forcing government projects to use their non competitive labor in contracts should be criminal. Sorry you shouldnt make 40 a hour to put 3 bolts in a door.
     
  5. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #5
    You also should not be able to over-work workers, cut their benefits and post record profits.
     
  6. ender land macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2010
    #6
    wtf, I read this title as "romney targets unicorns."

    I really need sleep I think :)


    How are these bad to cut? Can someone explain the benefit?

    I'm not sure on the first as to what it is.
     
  7. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    Unions are largely a symptom of poor management. There are well run unions and there are poorly run unions just like there are well run companies and there are poorly run companies. Throwing the baby out with bath water is not a sustainable solution.

    And, for what it's worth, union workers aren't just guys in auto plants. Been to a school? Flown on a plane? Watched a movie? Checked out a pro ballgame? Yeah, lots of union going on there.


    Lethal
     
  8. JBazz macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    #8
    Why doesn't someone target these mismanaged bloated companies who dump their pension obligations on the government? Why is it a company with $4 billion in cash is allowed to say, "I don't want to pay pensions anymore" and none of our presidential campaigning politicians will stand up and call foul?
     
  9. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #9
    Yep. I'm sure all those opposed to unions would hate all of these things too.

    Just happened to my parents. My dad worked for a company all his life, since 20 years old, paid into the pension and health benefit plans for over 45 years. Guess what? The company's lawyers are taking away the health benefits. Gee, wonder what's next?

    But yet, we have CEOs taking millions of dollars in golden parachutes for screwing up a company.
     
  10. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    The CEOs of many companies are playing with the social contract at their own peril.
     
  11. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #11
    My parents have realized their mistakes. They were lifelong Republicans because of social issues. They learned the hard way. My dad worked in a factory and was a proud union member the whole time. Trust me, no one worked harder than my dad. But yet, because of religion, voted Republican.

    Now, my dad's old factory is a museum to his company. I'm not kidding. All the jobs went south. The company is now working to take away everything he worked for. It's disgusting.

    Guess what? Now they're big Obama fans. It's sad it took their whole lives to realize what the Republicans were doing to them.
     
  12. malman89 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #12
    Regardless of ones view on unions, Romney sure keeps saying things to ensure that he won't be able to lock up the nomination going into the RNC.

    Santorum has already tied or taken over MI depending on the polls. He's killing Romney in Ohio. There's just way too many votes at stake to just shrug off the Midwest/Rustbelt and even the strong auto industry in the south (not pertaining to his anti-union stance, as most states are right to work, but his recent addendum on the auto bailout).

    Basically shunning the central U.S. isn't going to help your chances, buddy.
     
  13. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #13
    Honestly- I think Romney knows the Republicans are going to lose, and big, in November. I think he wants out. If Santorum wins the nomination, the GOP is sunk, along with the Teapublicans.

    BTW- anybody notice that the economy is getting better? It is.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    As usual, you're oversimplifying the history. First, unions were heavily represented in industries that have taken huge economic hits: auto industry, print journalism, etc. Moreover, unions were never able to become integrated in new industries like software development.

    The why is complicated. Some of this is because of culture: software developers have until recently been considered "high-skill" workers, and so didn't need the protection of a trade union. Some of this is because of politics: the GOP has relentlessly attacked unions since before Reagan.

    If the bolts are special in some way and their failure represents a loss of life or security failure, having a well-paid worker might be a good idea.

    Keep in mind that a union exists to protect workers beyond their paycheck, including worker safety, benefits, and hours. Unions would be unnecessary if corporations would treat their workers fairly.
     
  15. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #15
    I keep hoping one of the GOP are crazy enough to run as an independent. That would be great watching them tear at each other only to make damn sure neither of them wins.
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
    What do they mean?
     
  17. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #17
    So. Let me get this straight.

    Romney is going anti-union right before the Michigan Primary.

    This is rich.
     
  18. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #18
    You were not the only one, but I thought well he's a Republican they believe in mythical deities, and they are the party of hate, meanness, pettiness, and spitefulness.:(


    Those that dislike unions are same people who have never stood alone, against big business. :mad:
     
  19. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #19
    Hell if I know.

    Must be from the same place that allows more pollution under things called the "Clean Water Act" or the "Clear Skies Act".
     
  20. samiwas macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #20
    The name is a misnomer. It's more "right to fire". Right to work laws basically mean that the employer can hire and fire whoever they want for any reason, or for no reason at all. The worker has pretty much no recourse.
     
  21. Thomas Veil thread starter macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #21
    Well, since the auto industry is already a part of this discussion, check out this charming little tidbit I found in an article about Romney's displeasure with the auto bailouts:

    Friggin' hypocrite. I guess government help is bad...until you're the one who needs it.

    "...One of those moments where the reality trumped your principles." Mr. Clueless doesn't appear to realize that's a pretty clear admission that reality and his principles are pretty far apart from each other. Maybe he oughta think about changing his principles.
     
  22. guzhogi macrumors 68030

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #22
    Agreed. I wouldn't really call myself pro-union or anti-union. I'm more interested in all parties involved getting treated fairly, get what they need, and work their best.

    If people don't want to be in a union, don't force them. However, if they take advantage of union benefits, they should pay their fair share.

    I also feel people be allowed to work for however long they want and get paid appropriately for their work. If someone wants to work 80 hrs/week, fine. Pay them for 80 hrs/week. If someone wants to work only 10 hrs/week, fine. Pay for 10 hrs/week. If they want to work 40 hrs/week and the management makes them work 50 hrs/week, pay overtime.

    I'm a little conflicted on pay, though. On the one hand, I feel that people should at least make a living wage. Make enough money to put a roof over their heads, food on the table and have a little left over for fun, emergencies and other stuff as needed. However, I also feel that people should get paid for what they're worth. Someone who does some really menial task like putting in screws shouldn't make $100/hr. Make it market bearable and fair to the company as well.

    I also feel that employers should provide a clean, safe working environment. Sometimes, I wonder how much it would cost to regularly clean & maintain systems compared to paying for accidents, injuries, legal fees, etc. Look at the BP oil spill a few years back. How much money did BP lose due to lost oil & having to clean that up? And how much would it have cost to properly maintain everything?

    [/rant]
     
  23. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #23
    Unions shouldn't be necessary in a free labor market. But, nobody lives in a completely free labor market, because even in a large urban area, ageism, sexism, and many other social prejudices abound. However, in the heyday of unions, the majority of workers lived in company towns where there was a single dominant employer. For example, "The Mine", in a mining town, "The Mill", in a mill town. You had to be there.

    In today's urban society, unions are taking on a new role. As management information systems have allowed management to centralize all power at the top, unions offer an alternative communication path around powerless middle managers who are too afraid of the boss to challenge anything that comes from above. CEOs need unions to tell them what their subordinates are afraid to say.
     
  24. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #24
    America will not be competitive in a global market with unions. The government needs to enact standards for labor used on products sold in America for one, and secondly the companies need to break the unions so that they are flexible enough to compete globally.

    Everything that is unionized in America is complete garbage from the teachers to the autoworkers.
     
  25. guzhogi macrumors 68030

    guzhogi

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Location:
    Wherever my feet take me…
    #25
    How about we replace as many manufacturing jobs with robots as possible, and then shoot the people the robots replaced? Robots would cost less, do a better job, plus there would be less competition for jobs and less mouths to feed.

    [/sarcasm]
     

Share This Page