Ohio's anti union law rejected

Gee, I didn't realize that public worker unions were gone in WI.

And maybe you didn't realize that public worker unions contribute to higher and higher taxes and that private sector unions contribute to higher and higher wages.

And that one, two, punch contributes to fewer and fewer American jobs as more and more manufacturing moves offshore.

You rail against companies using cheap labor overseas while rejoicing about unions getting more and more expenses from employers, public and private.
More pay for less work does not equal a higher standard of living. It equals fewer jobs and a lower standard of living.

 

I don't rail against companies using cheap labor overseas, nor do I rejoice about unions getting more and more expenses from employers, public and private.......what made you think I did that?

I do rail against the average lazy American worker who is not cost effective on a global scale, and in turn is blaming Obama for that.

Business owners have a right to do business wherever it's most profitable.

In fact....unions are just prolonging the agony for it's mostly cost ineffective workers, because the adjustment is coming. Buisiness owners already don't want to invest in interests where American labor is involved. What this means it......American labor is not exceptional....which is a fact Democrats and Republicans will not admit. The closest anyone has come is where Obama said Americans have gone soft...which is the problem

But it's easier for the GOP to drop the whole mess at Obama's feet like he's got a friggen magic wand...for electioneering purposes.....and there seems to be no shortage on mindless righties who believe the oversimplification

 

That is not the worker's fault, it is the fault of employers who fail to invest in making workers more efficient.

Businesses do not want to invest in jobs plant and equipment the US because it is more profitable to put their money to work in speculative markets due to the low capital gains tax.

US manufacturing workers are among the most efficient and productive in the word despite the failure of management to invest. US manufacturing is uncompetitive in many endeavors for sure, but it is not from the line workers wages, which are lower than in the EU and per $ of goods made competitive with many other nations. US manufacturing competitiveness is impeded by vastly over sized management ranks, overblown executive compensation, a fetish with short term profits over long term viability and the distinct failure of the US to adopt the metric system.

US manufacturers make many goods that would be highly competitive in world markets if they would only switch to using metric nuts and bolts. Over 40 years of recalcitrance towards the metric system because the capital requirements for the shift would cause a problem with short term profits is becoming a bigger and bigger problem for long term survival.

 

Is that what the Walker Commercials told you. They also didn't get to see massive cuts in education. Companies hiring? Doesn't look any different.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/124734058.html

 

Union workers are being laid off anyway just like everyone else. That's why there are people taking to the streets. Enough is enough. All this with corporations hoarding record profits. Ohio is just the beginning...

 

Do you mean profits like these:


http://research.financial-projections.com/IndustryStats-NetProfit

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SoMLoWBKM4I/AAAAAAAAK4g/wKdZyg5LxQ0/s1600-h/profits.bmp

Companies are profitable now because they HAd to cut their workforce to keep from going out of business. If they were to hire people with no demand for their business, they would go out of business and then even the employees still working would also be out of a job.

If a business NEEDS 100 employees, it hires 100 employees. If it NEEDS 1000 employees, it hires 1000 employees. If the business NEEDS 1000 employees, it does NOT try to operate with 800 employees. Nor CAN it continue to stay in business if it hires 1500 employees but NEEDS only 1000.

Businesses really do try to operate on the KISS principle. Life and business is complicated enough without trying to make things more difficult. People with 2nd grade educations but an abundance of common sense have been successful in business, because common sense, more than anything else applies. If you NEED employees, you hire them, if you don't NEED employees, you CANNOT hire them. Not complicated at all.

 

God(*)(*)(*)(*)ed commies are at it again... Where is the greatest country of Earth going? Into third-world marxism stalinism?

 

If they don't need employes, then why are they in business? Just for the tax breaks? Get out of the way and make room for the innovators who will recognize the changing society and how best to change their business strategies to capitalize on this new reality.

 

Exit the imaginary fantasy world and enter the real world. Business does and always has and always will do exactly as you suggest. They plan to do so years before you had such a thought. And if one IS an innovator, it is simply NOT possible to stand in his way without being run over.

I took on an industry that had a couple of BILLION dollar companies that "controlled" the industry. One well over 100 years old and one about 100 years old.

Attack their market share with a paltry $2 million dollars? Yes, if one could see all that they were missing. In 5 years we were doing near $100 million a year. QUITE PROFITABLY! And when someone had a question, they came to us for answers, not the 100 year old company.

How could I think such a thing was possible? I had inside knowledge of some other companies as I was coming up through the ranks.

Company M established their market and had a 94% share of that market. Company G was new and shared the remaining 6% with a dozen other companies. 20 years later, both M and G were still in the same business, except now Company G's PROFIT, was greater than Company M's total volume.

It happens all the time. Apple all but started the PC business, Microsoft almost ran Apple out of business. Apple woke up and diversified and their PC business got better too.

Why do liberals always want to think businesses just sit around counting their money. That they almost NEVER do, they're too busy working on 5 years out, 10 years out, 25 years out. What happens today is what they planned for 20 years ago.

 

Unless the corporate raiders show up, take on huge amounts of debt to buy enough shares to gain control of the company, stop all capital spending, sell off assets, raid the pension fund, and otherwise run it into the ground as they monetize it. Just the fear of these raiders would cause management to end up doing the same thing anyway, especially if the management was put in place by Wall Street investors whose only interest was to "maximize the realization of corporate assets".

The modern steel industry is based on innovations generated at US Steel, which was never able to implement them because its management cut capital spending to pay dividends and then ran up huge debts to support its share price and fend off corporate raiders. Other steel manufacturers did implement the innovations which reduced costs so significantly that US Steel was no longer able to manufacture steel at competitive prices and fell into bankruptcy.

Not all management and owners have the long term interests of a company in mind.

 

Liberals talk like all bad happens all the time. There are millions of businesses. Some have unscrupulous CEO's, most don't, most CEO's are just trying to advance their companies withing the law. Without a doubt companies suffer 1000 times more theft from employees than employees suffer from bad CEO's
We have Congresspeople like Grayson. His rants show him to be unhinged and need of years of therapy. Willie wavers like Tony and his baloney, and old guys trying to tickle some one in the next crapper.. We even have a Marxist/Communist president. All are the exceptions, but the only thing your liberal manipulators allow you to learn.
The world of business that you so hate,,,,,,,,,,,,,IS supplying 91% of the workforce with jobs. And would supply 100% of the workforce with jobs if they could.

 

Yep take out the police and fire and watch it pass.

Even FDR stated it would be a dumb idea to give collective bargaining to government workers.

 

You're right....it probably wouldn't have been struck down without those firefighters and police posing for the cameras in uniform.

If I thought we could increase the efficiency of government workers, and reduce the cost of running the government, without eliminating unions, or at the very least restricting collective bargaining.....I'd have more faith that unions should continue to exist for gvernment workers.

In a good economy....we can afford that...but now?....not so much.

That doesn't mean we can't restore collective bargaining after we recover though. Even though that would completely negate the added benefit to Republicans for thier union busting efforts. I mean everybody knows that the GOP cares way more about putting a kink in Democratic funding than they do spending

 

FDR, Meany and LaQuardia three of our countries leading advocates of Unions all agreed that the relationship between government workers and their employerr, the government, is entirely different from private sector workers and private companies. There can be no collective bargaining with the government and taxpayer money.