First Official GOP President Announcement

So you have chosen the path of evil communists figures !

It can happen at any dead end job where low level management has reached their peak in a right to work state.

Obviously your are protected from termination for personal reasons but only an idiot would fire someone and openly admit its due to personal bias or tension. Its also hard to prove you were fired because someone dislikes you.

When I first moved to AZ I saw this all the time while working at a call center that was being ran by individuals who only had H.S diplomas.

http://www.ffxiah.com/forum/topic/44695/chinas-economy-just-overtook-the-usas/5/#2867311

You are certainly blind.

You are still protected from discrimination at all levels.

Besides, if people are being fired "just because," wouldn't the press be all over that? Since they love a story and love to make corporate look bad.

Except that's not happening. I mean, if it was as bad as you are saying, then union states would have lower unemployment and higher real wages than non-union states

Too bad the data says otherwise....

So, where's your evidence again?

if you want certainty join the military..

the only way you ever get 'fired' is by being a fat ***. When they 'downsize' all they really do is make the 'physical fitness' requirements more stringent.

Feels > real data.

Only a matter of time before liberals start making up news stories to argue against problems that only feel like they're there.

What Ramyrez's assertion is that unions = good and no unions = bad.

He cannot see that a lower standard of living, lower wages, lower benefits, lower lifestyle, and lower ability to save for retirement is what unions offer.

Non-union states have more efficient workforce because inefficiencies are not protected. I just shown that most (not all) non-union states have higher wages and less unemployment (which creates an employee-driven negotiation situation, because with less unemployment, employees have more power in determining wage structure and benefits) than union states.

So, again, where's the evidence that union states actually gives what they promise? Which is higher wages, higher benefits, higher bargaining power than at will employment.

I feel on a whole other level !

If Scott Walker busts up some bloated federal/state unions as the next pres, I will have a 4 year political hard on.

Speaking of things related to but not politics/gay cake/pizza

Can I use ffxiah.com as a reference for my yet to be done economic paper ?

It's not really pointed or pointless, but you say there won't be any decent candidates as if it were unique to 2016. Which, by the way, is still 18 months away, and so far we have basically the exact same candidates we had in 2008 and 2012.

There's plenty enough wrong with unions that makes them less than ideal but there are also things about them that are great for employees.

Right to work states do have lower unemployment and faster job growth but they most certainly do not have higher wages. States with unions have higher wages.

The other thing a lot of these studies don't take into account for is the benefits provided to those in union states and the cost of the benefits as a part of the employment package. Union employees most often have better healthcare and pensions. Right to work states usually have a much worse record on how they treat work place safety and what happens to an employee if he's been injured at work. 60 minutes did a report recently for Alabama I believe it was or maybe georgia... payout for losing an arm in the workplace was around $73,000.

Union states are definitely more of a financial burden on the employee which I believe is part of the reason for slower job growth and lower employment rates.

One of the other things to look at is that there are far less union workers out there in the private sector than there are non union workers. Granted this is all regarding private industry and unions... throw public sector in there and its a whole nother story.

You can have good or bad either way. Union shops in the private industry are not synonymous with lazy workers as opposes to their non union counterparts either as some would like to say.

Nominal wages, not real wages.

We already gone over that real wages are greater in non-union states than union states....

Evidence?

Evidence?

I swear to *** I made a post and it disappeared. I made fun of you conservative fiscal types for circle-jerking. It was great.

Anyhow, I basically said I won't have much time tonight to check in, but I provided this link that I said none of you would take because a non-profit, non-partisan site is clearly a liberal ploy.

Whatever. I disagree with you all but we all clearly want what we think is best for the country, whether it actually is or not.

Whatever, look at the info, disagree if you want, I'll be back tomorrow to *** back and forth.

~Rammie

You posted it here which I replied:

Also, fun story, the worst representation of "government workers" that everyone frequently cites -- construction workers on highways -- are actually seldom public employees at all, but private (frequently non-contract) employees of a state contractor.

You will find no argument from me that the government contract system on all levels -- local, state, federal -- is *** up and needs reworked from the basement up.

Ah. How silly of me.

My bad.

They've got their research, etc. on their site, so view their citations as needed.

I did. They are speculating on RTW laws, but none of their sources actually showed the laws itself. Just their own speculation.

Besides, I wouldn't consider blogs and commentaries as reliable sources......and that's basically what they are....

This is why I like Walker's policy towards unions, optional, not mandatory. If you like them fine, then you can pay and join, etc. If you don't want to join, then you shouldn't be forced.

Your face is WAY out of touch, homie.

pwned.

Fine, but don't take away the ability to automatically withdraw dues from pay, and don't let people who refuse to belong be included under contracts...see how quickly they come hounding to join when their pay rate bottoms out, their PTO floors, and they find they're paying half of their paycheck into their insurance because their employer is a greedy scumbag...

You mean I can't trust a pro-union blog to give me unbiased facts about unions? What's next on your agenda? Trying to convince people that Rolling Stone has shoddy journalism? Good luck with that.

Republicans and right winger nut jobs are lower then the dirt! Kick them all out of my America!

That's called right to work. It sounds good, but when you pair it with at-will employment, it basically makes unionizing an automatic pink slip for employees.

Without an organized union of workers, they have no power to collectively bargain with an employer, even more so in places with higher unemployment. If a large portion of the workforce decides that they want to enter discussion with an employer, the employer can simply say no. A large portion will abandon the idea rather than risk unemployment by striking and the few that actually do strike will just be told their services are no longer needed. Some companies actively seek to break up groups of workers by offering some slightly better compensation and then letting a few people go as a warning.

The beauty of at-will employment is that either the employer or employee can terminate their relationship at any time without a reason. It serves to neuter workers rights and encourages employers to adopt harmful business practices.

Chaos is honestly an outlier and I understand why he feels the way he does. Most people aren't stocking up on metal investments in high school to retire to Eastern Europe. He's an oddball, but good for him.

But the rest of the people that are anti-union I truly don't understand. KN I get to a point, I guess, if I assume since he's in a position that involves a trust fund, his family is more on the "employer" than "employee" side of things, but that just says to me he's grown up never having to sweat anything, and never knowing the fear of unemployment because someone doesn't like your tattoo, the timbre of your voice, or that you're too under-or-over-weight for their tastes.

I have a hard time believing that so many people who post here so regularly make mid-to-higher six-figures+ in annual income to allow them to think like people in those upper tax brackets.

What is this I don't even...

First you have to prove that everyone who makes less than six figures is better under a union in every case. Otherwise, you're basically just saying, "I can't imagine how anyone who isn't rich doesn't belong to this thing that doesn't have proven benefit across the board but sounds good in theory!"