Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 1:12 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Did you hit your head while waiting on that cliff Jim? Your seeming to be a bit more dopey than usual.

Perhaps scaup. I don't remember. If so I can take solace in the fact that I had a lot of good years, in contrast to being born into "dopiness" as you apparently were, quick draw! :hi:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am


Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed May 14, 2014 2:11 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote: Really? When did that law come into effect? I always thought it was majority win.

SpinnerMan wrote: So what's the point of quorum? :huh:



And what was the legally required quorum in this specific case, Spinner? :huh: Does "quorum" even apply or is just a strawman argument because you are painted into a corner and have no logical argument?

I never said it was not technically legal. I said it SHOULD not have been legal. I also asked your opinion if you thought a 20% turnout is sufficient for a valid vote in this circumstance.

JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was legal. It was NOT right!

Do you disagree with that?

I think 20% is way too low to meet the INTENT of a quorum.

My OPINION is that the union should require a supermajority (probably 2/3rds) of those that will be in the union and not 50%+1 of those that bother to vote.

Two people forcing one person to do something is far better than a small fraction forcing a much larger fraction to do something. Even slightly more than one person forcing slightly less than one person to do something seems very unAmerican, very anti-individual liberty, just doesn't sit well with me.

Forcing anyone to do anything, like being in a union, needs to have a very high bar assuming you truly believe in individual liberty.

I know liberals don't get an uneasy feeling when they are forcing other people to do what the liberal wants them to do. They treat others like children and not co-equal adults. They wouldn't be liberals if they did have problems with forcing people to do what they wanted like they do their children.. For me, it always makes me uncomfortable, so I find 17% forcing 83% to do something just seems so wrong. Even 51% forcing 49% does not seem close to right. It has to be overwhelming. This is a founding principle and the reason it is so hard to amend the Constitution and why it's far easier to stop new legislation than it is to create it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16061
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Indaswamp » Wed May 14, 2014 2:14 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote: Really? When did that law come into effect? I always thought it was majority win.

SpinnerMan wrote: So what's the point of quorum? :huh:



And what was the legally required quorum in this specific case, Spinner? :huh: Does "quorum" even apply or is just a strawman argument because you are painted into a corner and have no logical argument?

I never said it was not technically legal. I said it SHOULD not have been legal. I also asked your opinion if you thought a 20% turnout is sufficient for a valid vote in this circumstance.

JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was legal. It was NOT right!

Do you disagree with that?

I think 20% is way too low to meet the INTENT of a quorum.

My OPINION is that the union should require a supermajority (probably 2/3rds) of those that will be in the union and not 50%+1 of those that bother to vote.

Two people forcing one person to do something is far better than a small fraction forcing a much larger fraction to do something. Even slightly more than one person forcing slightly less than one person to do something seems very unAmerican, very anti-individual liberty, just doesn't sit well with me.

Forcing anyone to do anything, like being in a union, needs to have a very high bar assuming you truly believe in individual liberty.

I know liberals don't get an uneasy feeling when they are forcing other people to do what the liberal wants them to do. They treat others like children and not co-equal adults. They wouldn't be liberals if they did have problems with forcing people to do what they wanted like they do their children.. For me, it always makes me uncomfortable, so I find 17% forcing 83% to do something just seems so wrong. Even 51% forcing 49% does not seem close to right. It has to be overwhelming. This is a founding principle and the reason it is so hard to amend the Constitution and why it's far easier to stop new legislation than it is to create it.

Strong arm tactics are a key tenant of how unions operate spinnerman. Glimmerjim has rose colored glasses on.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56810
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 2:33 pm

Glimmerjim wrote: Really? When did that law come into effect? I always thought it was majority win.

SpinnerMan wrote: So what's the point of quorum? :huh:



Glimmerjim wrote: And what was the legally required quorum in this specific case, Spinner? :huh: Does "quorum" even apply or is just a strawman argument because you are painted into a corner and have no logical argument?

SpinnerMan wrote: I never said it was not technically legal. I said it SHOULD not have been legal. I also asked your opinion if you thought a 20% turnout is sufficient for a valid vote in this circumstance.

JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was legal. It was NOT right!

Do you disagree with that?

Vehemently. It was an open election. Apparently the people who cared voted.

SpinnerMan wrote: I think 20% is way too low to meet the INTENT of a quorum.

My OPINION is that the union should require a supermajority (probably 2/3rds) of those that will be in the union and not 50%+1 of those that bother to vote.


All these "should haves" and "intents" and "OPINION" are pretty waffling statements, Spinner. My opinion is we should all have Bugatti's to drive and everyone should have nothing but good intents. Doesn't make for a very strong position, does it? :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 2:35 pm

Indaswamp wrote: Strong arm tactics are a key tenant of how unions operate spinnerman. Glimmerjim has rose colored glasses on.

I've lived a life in unions, Inda. I think my glasses are pretty clear.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Indaswamp » Wed May 14, 2014 2:40 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote: Strong arm tactics are a key tenant of how unions operate spinnerman. Glimmerjim has rose colored glasses on.

I've lived a life in unions, Inda. I think my glasses are pretty clear.

:lol3: thanks for validating my assessment....
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56810
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed May 14, 2014 2:50 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote: Really? When did that law come into effect? I always thought it was majority win.

SpinnerMan wrote: So what's the point of quorum? :huh:



Glimmerjim wrote: And what was the legally required quorum in this specific case, Spinner? :huh: Does "quorum" even apply or is just a strawman argument because you are painted into a corner and have no logical argument?

SpinnerMan wrote: I never said it was not technically legal. I said it SHOULD not have been legal. I also asked your opinion if you thought a 20% turnout is sufficient for a valid vote in this circumstance.

JUST BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This was legal. It was NOT right!

Do you disagree with that?

Vehemently. It was an open election. Apparently the people who cared voted.

SpinnerMan wrote: I think 20% is way too low to meet the INTENT of a quorum.

My OPINION is that the union should require a supermajority (probably 2/3rds) of those that will be in the union and not 50%+1 of those that bother to vote.


All these "should haves" and "intents" and "OPINION" are pretty waffling statements, Spinner. My opinion is we should all have Bugatti's to drive and everyone should have nothing but good intents. Doesn't make for a very strong position, does it? :lol3:

So your opinion is that if they mailed ballots to 100,000 people and only got one back, what that person says goes. Good to know. I'll bet you wouldn't think that if you were one of the 99,999 who didn't vote, but one never expects liberals to have consistent standards.

How the hell do you even know that people got these ballots IN THE MAIL? It's a horrible way to hold an election.

Do you read all the junk mail you get? If you are taking care of your wife or child and get a letter asking if you want to unionize, would you think that is like Ed McMahon telling you that you won a million dollars? I would. The notion is silly AS SHOWN BY THE 80% THAT BAILED AT THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY. The results show it was VERY unpopular as most liberal policies are in practice.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16061
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 2:51 pm

Indaswamp wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote: Strong arm tactics are a key tenant of how unions operate spinnerman. Glimmerjim has rose colored glasses on.

I've lived a life in unions, Inda. I think my glasses are pretty clear.

:lol3: thanks for validating my assessment....

You're welcome. :huh: That's been a big secret you sleuthed out over the last couple of years, Sherlock! :lol3:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 3:01 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: So your opinion is that if they mailed ballots to 100,000 people and only got one back, what that person says goes. Good to know. I'll bet you wouldn't think that if you were one of the 99,999 who didn't vote, but one never expects liberals to have consistent standards.



I would have no right to complain were I one of the 99,999. I should have voted if I cared about the outcome. What are you going to do? Blame the lack of delivery of 99,999 of 100,000 ballots on a mistake of the USPS? :lol3: You guys really have no bounds, do you? The Republicans have spent the last 6 years doing NOTHING but attempt to find scandal, as they have done whenever they are not in power. They don't have answers, they WHINE. How many MORE Benghazi committees will we have? Votes on Obamacare? Birth certificate idiocies? Jeez, these guys need to get a real job and DO SOMETHING for a change except obstruct. The Republican Party can't find its ass with two hands these days. There's more infighting and lack of cohesiveness than on the Jerry Springer show! Poor old Boohooner is on the way out. Say bye bye! :hi:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby ScaupHunter » Wed May 14, 2014 3:15 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote: Strong arm tactics are a key tenant of how unions operate spinnerman. Glimmerjim has rose colored glasses on.

I've lived a life in unions, Inda. I think my glasses are pretty clear.



The only clear glasses you have been near in this lifetime are empty beer glasses. :lol3:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 3:17 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
Indaswamp wrote: Strong arm tactics are a key tenant of how unions operate spinnerman. Glimmerjim has rose colored glasses on.

I've lived a life in unions, Inda. I think my glasses are pretty clear.



The only clear glasses you have been near in this lifetime are empty beer glasses. :lol3:

:lol3: I've seen a few, scaup!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed May 14, 2014 3:27 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: So your opinion is that if they mailed ballots to 100,000 people and only got one back, what that person says goes. Good to know. I'll bet you wouldn't think that if you were one of the 99,999 who didn't vote, but one never expects liberals to have consistent standards.



I would have no right to complain were I one of the 99,999. I should have voted if I cared about the outcome. What are you going to do? Blame the lack of delivery of 99,999 of 100,000 ballots on a mistake of the USPS? :lol3: You guys really have no bounds, do you? The Republicans have spent the last 6 years doing NOTHING but attempt to find scandal, as they have done whenever they are not in power. They don't have answers, they WHINE. How many MORE Benghazi committees will we have? Votes on Obamacare? Birth certificate idiocies? Jeez, these guys need to get a real job and DO SOMETHING for a change except obstruct. The Republican Party can't find its ass with two hands these days. There's more infighting and lack of cohesiveness than on the Jerry Springer show! Poor old Boohooner is on the way out. Say bye bye! :hi:

So you really reject the underlying notion of a quorum? Particularly in this situation where they did not CHOOSE to be part of the group, they did not have a common workplace, there was no employer to argue the negatives of joining the union. Was the information sent by certified mail or did it look like all the other pile of junk mail? That's a pretty easy way to guarantee a labor victory. I hope you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and are not fine with this kind of voting procedure. If so, why can't we have government issued identification to vote available freely from the government? If they don't bother to show on the first Tuesday in November with a valid ID after having registered well in advance, do they really care, so screw 'em, right?

And based on the results of 80% of the people "voting" with their wallets, it is clear they did not know or understand what was being forced upon them, did they?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16061
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed May 14, 2014 9:23 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: So your opinion is that if they mailed ballots to 100,000 people and only got one back, what that person says goes. Good to know. I'll bet you wouldn't think that if you were one of the 99,999 who didn't vote, but one never expects liberals to have consistent standards.



I would have no right to complain were I one of the 99,999. I should have voted if I cared about the outcome. What are you going to do? Blame the lack of delivery of 99,999 of 100,000 ballots on a mistake of the USPS? :lol3: You guys really have no bounds, do you? The Republicans have spent the last 6 years doing NOTHING but attempt to find scandal, as they have done whenever they are not in power. They don't have answers, they WHINE. How many MORE Benghazi committees will we have? Votes on Obamacare? Birth certificate idiocies? Jeez, these guys need to get a real job and DO SOMETHING for a change except obstruct. The Republican Party can't find its ass with two hands these days. There's more infighting and lack of cohesiveness than on the Jerry Springer show! Poor old Boohooner is on the way out. Say bye bye! :hi:

So you really reject the underlying notion of a quorum? Particularly in this situation where they did not CHOOSE to be part of the group, they did not have a common workplace, there was no employer to argue the negatives of joining the union. Was the information sent by certified mail or did it look like all the other pile of junk mail? That's a pretty easy way to guarantee a labor victory. I hope you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and are not fine with this kind of voting procedure. If so, why can't we have government issued identification to vote available freely from the government? If they don't bother to show on the first Tuesday in November with a valid ID after having registered well in advance, do they really care, so screw 'em, right?

And based on the results of 80% of the people "voting" with their wallets, it is clear they did not know or understand what was being forced upon them, did they?

Never mind, Spinner. The union prevailed for a short time. There must have been skullduggery going on. Any election your's doesn't win is fixed. No more thought needs to go into it than that.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 8:16 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: So your opinion is that if they mailed ballots to 100,000 people and only got one back, what that person says goes. Good to know. I'll bet you wouldn't think that if you were one of the 99,999 who didn't vote, but one never expects liberals to have consistent standards.



I would have no right to complain were I one of the 99,999. I should have voted if I cared about the outcome. What are you going to do? Blame the lack of delivery of 99,999 of 100,000 ballots on a mistake of the USPS? :lol3: You guys really have no bounds, do you? The Republicans have spent the last 6 years doing NOTHING but attempt to find scandal, as they have done whenever they are not in power. They don't have answers, they WHINE. How many MORE Benghazi committees will we have? Votes on Obamacare? Birth certificate idiocies? Jeez, these guys need to get a real job and DO SOMETHING for a change except obstruct. The Republican Party can't find its ass with two hands these days. There's more infighting and lack of cohesiveness than on the Jerry Springer show! Poor old Boohooner is on the way out. Say bye bye! :hi:

So you really reject the underlying notion of a quorum? Particularly in this situation where they did not CHOOSE to be part of the group, they did not have a common workplace, there was no employer to argue the negatives of joining the union. Was the information sent by certified mail or did it look like all the other pile of junk mail? That's a pretty easy way to guarantee a labor victory. I hope you are just arguing for the sake of arguing and are not fine with this kind of voting procedure. If so, why can't we have government issued identification to vote available freely from the government? If they don't bother to show on the first Tuesday in November with a valid ID after having registered well in advance, do they really care, so screw 'em, right?

And based on the results of 80% of the people "voting" with their wallets, it is clear they did not know or understand what was being forced upon them, did they?

Never mind, Spinner. The union prevailed for a short time. There must have been skullduggery going on. Any election your's doesn't win is fixed. No more thought needs to go into it than that.

You STILL have not offered the standards by which you think an election should be valid. Why not? :huh:

I'll venture a guess. Your an honest man and you know that an election with 17% of the potential voters determining the fate of the other 83% is flawed. It just doesn't feel or smell right.

I have put forth standards and why I feel they are the right standards. They have nothing to do with who wins or loses. ZERO. They are based in principles. Principles that I think you generally agree with. This election do not come close to those principles. Even if the vote was 17% no instead of 17% yes, the notion that it was binding for ever is just absurd. It was a failed election regardless whether yes or no had the 17% and you know this.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16061
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 10:55 am

SpinnerMan wrote: You STILL have not offered the standards by which you think an election should be valid. Why not? :huh:



Of course I have, Spinner. You just want to cover your ears and go "la la la la..." and then continue with your argument. In a fair election with no quorum dictates, which we have NO reason to believe this was except for your natural bias, the majority wins. It's really not all that complex of an issue to grasp. You're at home with 10 family members and you're deciding what to eat for dinner. The choices are Japanese and Mexican. 2 say Japanese, 3 say Mexican, and 5 say they don't care either way. What do you say.....nope, we're not going to eat because we failed to reach a previously unmentioned quorum? Sheesh. Just simply throwing unsubstantiated allegations at an argument does not mean you win, Spin, no matter how desperately you hang on them or how many times we say them. Have the Republicans repealed the ACA? How many freakin' votes have they had? What is the oft quoted A Einstein statement..........."Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Do you think that qualifies? Of course it happens at an extreme cost to the nation, but hey, Republicans want smaller govt. with less spending. Um...say what?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 11:05 am

So your standards is that if they send out a million ballots and get 1 back, that 1 vote wins and your happy as a clam. :no:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16061
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 11:15 am

SpinnerMan wrote:So your standards is that if they send out a million ballots and get 1 back, that 1 vote wins and your happy as a clam. :no:

Certainly. Especially if that one vote was mine! :lol3: But really Spinner, assuming there was no skullduggery involved, that all had equal opportunity to vote, and that the choices were clearly defined with no quorum stipulations, of course. Obviously nobody cared enough to vote on the issue except for one person. Let's suppose, I somehow got a referendum about whether I should chew gum on Sundays. I like to chew gum on Sundays. My guess is that the return would be about the same. Out of 1 million, pretty much no one could give a hoot. So I would win, since I cast the only ballot. Now, on Sunday afternoon, when someone steps in that wad of expelled gum on the sidewalk, they can rue the fact that they didn't vote to prohibit me from chewing it, but they really have no legs to stand on (except the one stuck to the pavement :lol3: ).

(Had to repair the above. I had somehow left out half of the silly analogy! :no: )
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Thu May 15, 2014 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 12:14 pm

A hell of a lot of assumptions AND THAT IS MY POINT. I don't want to have to hope. I want proof.

It's not obvious. Maybe they never saw the information. There must be proof in my opinion.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16061
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 12:20 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:A hell of a lot of assumptions AND THAT IS MY POINT. I don't want to have to hope. I want proof.

It's not obvious. Maybe they never saw the information. There must be proof in my opinion.

I agree. To make accusations of fraud, there must be proof! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 12:30 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A hell of a lot of assumptions AND THAT IS MY POINT. I don't want to have to hope. I want proof.

It's not obvious. Maybe they never saw the information. There must be proof in my opinion.

I agree. To make accusations of fraud, there must be proof! :thumbsup:

Which I never made. I said it makes fraud more likely to succeed when a valid vote consists of 20% of those that have to live with the decision of the vote.

Another thing that I don't like about unions is that they are like herpes. It doesn't how many times you don't get them, once you get them, you are stuck with them forever.

Why does it only take one yes vote? Why wouldn't periodic revotes be the norm? If the covered workers get to revote every 2 years or 4 years, or whatever, it would not have taken an act of the legislature, would it?

However, I do not believe that if 50% +1 choose NOT to be part of a union it should not force the 50%-1 to not have union representation any more than I think the opposite should be true. What is wrong with people being able to freely choose and no need for a vote at all? If you want to be in you are in, if not, you are not. I just love freedom.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16061
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 7:26 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A hell of a lot of assumptions AND THAT IS MY POINT. I don't want to have to hope. I want proof.

It's not obvious. Maybe they never saw the information. There must be proof in my opinion.

I agree. To make accusations of fraud, there must be proof! :thumbsup:

Which I never made. I said it makes fraud more likely to succeed when a valid vote consists of 20% of those that have to live with the decision of the vote.

Another thing that I don't like about unions is that they are like herpes. It doesn't how many times you don't get them, once you get them, you are stuck with them forever.

Why does it only take one yes vote? Why wouldn't periodic revotes be the norm? If the covered workers get to revote every 2 years or 4 years, or whatever, it would not have taken an act of the legislature, would it?

However, I do not believe that if 50% +1 choose NOT to be part of a union it should not force the 50%-1 to not have union representation any more than I think the opposite should be true. What is wrong with people being able to freely choose and no need for a vote at all? If you want to be in you are in, if not, you are not. I just love freedom.

I would have no issues with that either, Spin. However, I do understand why a union would not want that, however. For one thing, they lose most of their bargaining power if there is not unity in the ranks. Secondly, extreme pressure can be placed on employees NOT to go union, too. Take WalMart for instance. They have anti-union policies such that you are essentially put on a watch list if you ever even speak of unions. All new employees are strongly advised to report any instances of union talk, and those that do are found without a job. All of these go both ways, in my opinion.
However, as Inda reminded me, we are currently talking about the public sector, and I come from a position of familiarity with the private sector.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Nabs » Thu May 15, 2014 7:56 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: You STILL have not offered the standards by which you think an election should be valid. Why not? :huh:



Of course I have, Spinner. You just want to cover your ears and go "la la la la..." and then continue with your argument. In a fair election with no quorum dictates, which we have NO reason to believe this was except for your natural bias, the majority wins. It's really not all that complex of an issue to grasp. You're at home with 10 family members and you're deciding what to eat for dinner. The choices are Japanese and Mexican. 2 say Japanese, 3 say Mexican, and 5 say they don't care either way. What do you say.....nope, we're not going to eat because we failed to reach a previously unmentioned quorum? Sheesh. Just simply throwing unsubstantiated allegations at an argument does not mean you win, Spin, no matter how desperately you hang on them or how many times we say them. Have the Republicans repealed the ACA? How many freakin' votes have they had? What is the oft quoted A Einstein statement..........."Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Do you think that qualifies? Of course it happens at an extreme cost to the nation, but hey, Republicans want smaller govt. with less spending. Um...say what?



The 5 that said "they don't care either way" still were heard as in they returned their ballots, that was not the case with the Unionization vote.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu May 15, 2014 8:13 pm

Nabs wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: You STILL have not offered the standards by which you think an election should be valid. Why not? :huh:



Of course I have, Spinner. You just want to cover your ears and go "la la la la..." and then continue with your argument. In a fair election with no quorum dictates, which we have NO reason to believe this was except for your natural bias, the majority wins. It's really not all that complex of an issue to grasp. You're at home with 10 family members and you're deciding what to eat for dinner. The choices are Japanese and Mexican. 2 say Japanese, 3 say Mexican, and 5 say they don't care either way. What do you say.....nope, we're not going to eat because we failed to reach a previously unmentioned quorum? Sheesh. Just simply throwing unsubstantiated allegations at an argument does not mean you win, Spin, no matter how desperately you hang on them or how many times we say them. Have the Republicans repealed the ACA? How many freakin' votes have they had? What is the oft quoted A Einstein statement..........."Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Do you think that qualifies? Of course it happens at an extreme cost to the nation, but hey, Republicans want smaller govt. with less spending. Um...say what?



The 5 that said "they don't care either way" still were heard as in they returned their ballots, that was not the case with the Unionization vote.


My mistake...let's say they didn't answer. :biggrin: And in the above situation, I don't think you can force someone to cast a ballot, or to vote in an election. I honestly don't know but am curious, are there quorums required for most state and Fed elected positions? Does a certain percentage of the population have to vote to make the election valid?
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10822
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby Nabs » Thu May 15, 2014 8:38 pm

If the 5 did not answer I would assume they were not hungry and the decision would be 5 mexican dinners and 7 pissed off people, 5 of whom would probably also be hungry.
User avatar
Nabs
hunter
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 5:35 pm

Re: Michigan looses 80% ofSEIU members...

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu May 15, 2014 9:15 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:A hell of a lot of assumptions AND THAT IS MY POINT. I don't want to have to hope. I want proof.

It's not obvious. Maybe they never saw the information. There must be proof in my opinion.

I agree. To make accusations of fraud, there must be proof! :thumbsup:

Which I never made. I said it makes fraud more likely to succeed when a valid vote consists of 20% of those that have to live with the decision of the vote.

Another thing that I don't like about unions is that they are like herpes. It doesn't how many times you don't get them, once you get them, you are stuck with them forever.

Why does it only take one yes vote? Why wouldn't periodic revotes be the norm? If the covered workers get to revote every 2 years or 4 years, or whatever, it would not have taken an act of the legislature, would it?

However, I do not believe that if 50% +1 choose NOT to be part of a union it should not force the 50%-1 to not have union representation any more than I think the opposite should be true. What is wrong with people being able to freely choose and no need for a vote at all? If you want to be in you are in, if not, you are not. I just love freedom.

I would have no issues with that either, Spin. However, I do understand why a union would not want that, however. For one thing, they lose most of their bargaining power if there is not unity in the ranks. Secondly, extreme pressure can be placed on employees NOT to go union, too. Take WalMart for instance. They have anti-union policies such that you are essentially put on a watch list if you ever even speak of unions. All new employees are strongly advised to report any instances of union talk, and those that do are found without a job. All of these go both ways, in my opinion.
However, as Inda reminded me, we are currently talking about the public sector, and I come from a position of familiarity with the private sector.

Freedom.

If the workers don't see the value, why be forced to do what they do not wish to do?

It's illegal for employers to bring extreme pressure. Even if not, wouldn't that be exactly what the union wants because is there a better sales pitch for the union than that? How much of that is simply union propaganda to try to scare the workers into feeling like they need to be protected? They aren't exactly going to sell the virtues of Walmart are they? Everyone I have ever known that worked at Walmart thought the job was vastly superior to the alternatives, which is why they took the job.

My father was a union ironworker as was his father. Craft unions, other than their ties to organized crime which was not in issue in my Dad's local, are great unions. The members freely join and they are free to leave. They have no monopoly powers and must compete in the market as we all should have to do. Yet the union provides a lot of value to its members which is why they freely join and willingly pay the dues.

My criticism are very specific and are no different than my criticism when businesses try to use power to profit. Power is never an acceptable way to profit whether employer or employee. Freedom is the only safe and sustainable path. If organizing into a union provides greater value, then it's a good thing and I'm all for it. If organizing is simply a means of extortion, it is a corrupting and destructive force.

Public sector unions do not provide any greater value. They simple extort money by taking jobs away from people that are just as capable and willing to work for less money. Just think how many more teachers we could afford if this extortion did not exist. Just think how much improvement we could see in the schools if teachers were paid free market rates. Overpaying for services does real harm. Sure it helps those that get overpaid, but it harms all the people that are ready willing and able to do the same thing for less and it harms all those forced to overpay. And on top of all that harm, it is simply antithetical to the notion of freedom.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16061
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bull64 and 6 guests