• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

BillBrasky Memorial Political Chat Thread

PhDeac said:
So instead of fixing problems a business owner just folded the company. You can’t blame the union for that. Blame incompetence and/or greed because some asshole couldn’t run a business without abusing workers. Stop scapegoating unions.

You’re presenting one side of the situation to blame the other side. The stories you tell that you think are sympathetic to ownership and management show how businesses aren’t worth owning if they can’t abuse labor.
Click to expand...

You really don't know anything of the story, so chill with the accusations of abuse or incompetence dude. Can you not conceive of the fact that unionizing can increase costs to a company and therefore affect their ability to keep a plant open?

And as for your second part...presenting one side of a situation to blame the other side....am I wrong or is that not the definition of a discussion/argument.

NONE of this is about "abusing" labor.

Why have you not at all, not once, addressed the fact that SOME union workers can abuse the system to the point that a company becomes unable to function properly?

Bottom line is you have no experience or knowledge of manufacturing or trucking unions or how they affect real life human beings. I keep conceding that not all unions are born of the same needs or look the same in practice, but you keep acting like I'm saying all unions are horrible and all management ever wants to do is "abuse" the workers.

I don't know how much more plainly I can put this.
 
It's always crazy when people tell a story and then when other people make inferences based on that story, they come back with "You really don't know anything of the story."

Dude, I know what you're telling me. So either you know what you're not sharing or you also don't know anything.

"am I wrong or is that not the definition of a discussion/argument."

Well yeah, so don't say something silly like, "admit there are two sides to every situation."

A few working class people "abusing" the system is not a big deal compared to hundreds of years of labor history on this continent built on abuse and exploitation. You're telling stories intended to demonize workers for the purpose of justifying exploitation. It's a tale as old as time.
 
I mean you guys make a pretty big fucking deal about cop unions. You can just replace everything in his story with it taking place instead in a police department and he would have found a welcoming circle jerk to his anecdotal story.
 
There are stories every day about shitty cops. The cops aren't abusing the unions or abusing the system. They're abusing citizens.
 
PhDeac said:
a) It's always crazy when people tell a story and then when other people make inferences based on that story, they come back with "You really don't know anything of the story."

Dude, I know what you're telling me. So b) either you know what you're not sharing or you also don't know anything.

"am I wrong or is that not the definition of a discussion/argument."

Well yeah, so don't say something silly like, c) "admit there are two sides to every situation."

d) A few working class people "abusing" the system is not a big deal compared to hundreds of years of labor history on this continent built on abuse and exploitation. You're telling stories intended to demonize workers for the purpose of justifying exploitation. It's a tale as old as time.
Click to expand...

a) Your inference was the extreme worst-case scenario. Usually that doesn't tend to be the case.

b) The entire story of a cotton mill, the pros and cons of their then-existing safety situations, the reasons workers unionized, the exact financial dealings and workings from that point on, and the official reasoning for closing said plant are both wayyyy to long and not worth my time to put here, nor do I know every single one of those facts...but I know enough.

c) If that's the case, then your statement ("You’re presenting one side of the situation to blame the other side.") is just as silly, as we were both basically defining a discussion/argument.

d) It is to the people who work there and have to deal with it EVERY DAY. Which, while labor history is important, they don't have the time to stand there and weigh its entire history, including abuse and exploitation, when trying to deal with instances of abuse of the system (such as a guy who THREE TIMES has come to work drunk, the third of which he drove a semi cab into a service pit, landing on another worker, breaking his shoulder and back and disabling him to the point he can never do his job again. So one guy loses out on income and a job, and the man who caused it gets rehired because the union appealed his termination. I'd hate to work in a place where you have to worry about coworkers like that every day.)

Unions work...sometimes. They are beneficial....sometimes. They are needed. They are also used to abuse the system and drag a company to a halt....sometimes.

Take the "sometimes", admit that saying a union, or union workers in ONE PLANT have greatly reduced output and managements' ability to operate properly is not chastising or demonizing ALL unions, and just STFU.
 
OblongPickle said:
a) Your inference was the extreme worst-case scenario. Usually that doesn't tend to be the case.

b) The entire story of a cotton mill, the pros and cons of their then-existing safety situations, the reasons workers unionized, the exact financial dealings and workings from that point on, and the official reasoning for closing said plant are both wayyyy to long and not worth my time to put here, nor do I know every single one of those facts...but I know enough.

c) If that's the case, then your statement ("You’re presenting one side of the situation to blame the other side.") is just as silly, as we were both basically defining a discussion/argument.

d) It is to the people who work there and have to deal with it EVERY DAY. Which, while labor history is important, they don't have the time to stand there and weigh its entire history, including abuse and exploitation, when trying to deal with instances of current/immediate abuse of the system (such as a guy who THREE TIMES has come to work drunk, the third of which he drove a semi cab into a service pit, landing on another worker, breaking his shoulder and back and disabling him to the point he can never do his job again. So one guy loses out on income and a job, and the man who caused it gets rehired because the union appealed his termination. I'd hate to work in a place where you have to worry about coworkers like that every day.)

Unions work...sometimes. They are beneficial....sometimes. They are needed. They are also used to abuse the system and drag a company to a halt....sometimes.

Take the "sometimes", admit that saying a union, or union workers in ONE PLANT have greatly reduced output and managements' ability to operate properly is not chastising or demonizing ALL unions, and just STFU.
Click to expand...
 
PhDeac said:
There are stories every day about shitty cops. The cops aren't abusing the unions or abusing the system. They're abusing citizens.
Click to expand...

Ummm...you mean things like qualified immunity and cops being basically untouchable and unable to be fired because the police union can and does gum up the system ISN'T the cops abusing the system or the union?
 
There’s no organization in history whut don’t deal with unintended consequences of efforts to try and make something better.
 
OblongPickle said:
Ummm...you mean things like qualified immunity and cops being basically untouchable and unable to be fired because the police union can and does gum up the system ISN'T the cops abusing the system or the union?
Click to expand...

The cops are the system. Cops aren't getting one over on their boss (the government). They are the government.
 
They are there to protect and serve. Aren't the people their "boss". So they are using their unions to justify/back up/prevent punishment of their abuse of their bosses.
 
If these anecdotes are to be believed, a drunk driver struck another human with a deadly weapon, causing severe injury and disability. How was this guy fighting for his job rather than his freedom?
 
Well if some lady said it on Twitter I guess the argument is settled.
 
OblongPickle said:
Not all unions are the same, and not all companies are the same. But in my only experience (albeit second-hand, though how can someone criticize the word of their own kin), it has not been a good situation.
Click to expand...

Part of becoming an adult is the realization that our parents are not infallible. They are humans and make mistakes just like anybody else. They can be affected by conscious and unconscious bias. I’m sure your dad has good intentions for his employees, but he is also somebody who is part of a system and society that at every turn devalues manual labor. The fact that he blames the union for his company’s woes and doesn’t place any responsibility on the (largely white, largely middle and upper class) management is indicative of some unconscious bias.
 
Workers unions are responsible, at least in part, for pretty much all non-racial civil rights progressive achievements in America. On the whole they have been really good for demanding and achieving worker safety standards, worker pay, reasonable work week hours and days, and a whole host of other stuff. Sure a few bad workers are protected in the process, oh well. On average though, Union workers are trying to get what they deserve from the companies they work for and the companies are trying to take everything they can get away with from their workers.

Pickle, It sucks that your dad has a few shitty employees that he can’t fire, but remember that the company agreed to the union contract in the first place and has their own hiring process that failed to scrutinize employees before they were hired. That sounds to me like a problem with the company and not the union. Your dad is misplacing blame, but it’s understandable because it also sounds like your dad was left to deal with the consequences of bad upper level management decisions. They agreed to union contract and they set the hr hiring practices in place, and now your dad is left with bad employees that he can’t fire. That is a management problem, not a union problem.
 
BiffTannen said:
Well if some lady said it on Twitter I guess the argument is settled.
Click to expand...

Republicans would hate police unions if they were real unions that addressed real labor issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top