- Audit raises questions for Episcopal Church
- Where will they stop?
- What they expect
- A DIFFERING VIEW/Why oppose reforms in ‘lower ed’?
- War with Iran
- Bush has failed our children
- Sovereignty of our nation at stake
- Vote no on all Denver bond issues
- “Ghettorize” shouldn’t have been a factor
- Bottled-water woes
Corruption in big labor too
In light of the data, it is instructive that Democrats have finally found a part of government where funding can be reduced. The Democrats pushed through the Senate (47-46 along party lines) legislation this month that will cut $2 million from the OLMS budget. Obviously corruption is more outrageous in some cultures than others.
This letter has not been edited.
and dont forget that all the union building sites in denver have to shut down when the dums come for their intercourse and intoxication party next year.
Posted by on October 29, 2007 04:16 PMJJ:
Of course there is corruption in Unions- just as there is in any business or government agency of any size.
Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Posted by Charles B. on October 29, 2007 04:35 PMYeah - what about those labor bosses who threw $2 miilion birthday bashes for their wife, manipulated stocks bring wealth to themselves and ruin to thousands of shareholders, and who cut power to California to drive up energy prices, etc? Damn corrupt labor....
Posted by Liam on October 29, 2007 04:59 PMFitzsimons redevelopment project. Billions in federal funds. BoPeep, Salazar, Owens, and Ed Tauer, while the bipartisan state legislative body was in a "mushroom" state of mind, gave all of the jobs and contracts in this "cash-cow", to construction copany owners who are members of the Mormon Church. Mile High Faith-Based Initiative. Shamnesty ensured that criminal illegal Mexicans, Vatican, and Mexican gov't got their "cuts". Federal funds fraud, waste, abuse, and RICO violations.
Sucking hind-tit were black disabled Vietnam veterans, who saw racist GOP WMD unleashed on their federal job and contracting preferences. Groff, T. Carroll, Marshall, and Jones, were cowering under their desks, while black vets were being emotionally and financially raped by Salazar and his GOP goons. I'm gonna exponentionally PO'ed if my "blood-loot" is in Mitt's (LDS freak-a-zoid and draft dodger) prez campaign coffers.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on October 29, 2007 06:16 PMAnd the news is??
NEWS FLASH
We live in a society governed by greed. Everybody has to have something more, bigger, better, faster than the next. How else do you explain unneeded multi-million dollar mansions, unneeded $100,000 + vehicles, unneeded million dollar plus salaries while the median salary is what 45,000?
I'm not a socialist by any means but if we concentrated more on the other person than our own selfishness then perhaps everybody would be better off.
By the way, compare the society and economy today to the one that existed right before the great depression. I'm not so off the mark in my assessment.
Posted by Harry on October 29, 2007 07:02 PMCharles B.-
Obviously,
JJ's point was the lack of outrage found by liberals and not the revelation there is corruption in big Labor.
You happen to be a perfect example of JJ's point-
You chose to ignore his argument completely while spewing unrelated nonsense, which, surprise surprise, did not include a hint of outrage at union corruption.
Posted by Get Real on October 29, 2007 08:37 PMGet Real
He does have a way of leaning into them doesn't he?
Posted by James Jones on October 29, 2007 10:01 PMLabor sucks. I say we just pay 'em minimum wage and if they dont like it send 'em to Iraq or they get the hell out of our country. Business has always taken care of eberyone in America. A little more Corporate ruile and less government and labor rule.
Posted by Keith on October 30, 2007 07:01 AMMr. Jones, where did you get your info? I'm curious as to what Unions were involved in these prosecutions.There are alot of different type of Unions out there.
My husband happens to be in The Carpenter's Union.I know the Democrats have been sucking Unions dry for many years.
I think Union money should not go to Candidates running for office.I think if Candidates want the Union vote they should be giving the Union money for their votes.
John F. Kennedy would have never won the election had it no been for the Unions and the Mafia.Look how they got screwed when he took office. We all know the results of the Kennedy's screwing the Mafia.
Posted by Carpenter's Wife on October 30, 2007 07:50 AMCarpenter's Wife,
Go to the Wall Street Journal and search with Union Corruption as key words.
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 08:05 AMCarpenters wife and JJ...and when Unions are gone I am sure we can count on Corprations to do the right thing and take care of the working class, right? Afterall, Corporations were always in favor of better working conditions, honest wages, benefits for the worker, overtime pay, 40 hour work weeks, etc... Yes the corporataions have always taken care of th working man, makes you wonder why these damn Unions ever got started in the first place.
Ibet your husband can't wait to go back to 70 hour work weeks, no overtime, unsafe working conditions ( damn OSHA!) and maybe instead of wasting money on college kids can start working again ( whats with this damn sissy kids, I say if you are over 10 you can work and haul bricks , lumber , shuingles, you name it...just like in the good old days).
I suggest anyone who is opposed to unions can give back any benefits you have acquired becasue of them ( and that would be ANY benefits you are receiving). Myself, I will keep my benefits and continue to support unions, they are the only thing out there that gives a damn about the working class.
Posted by Joe Lunchbox on October 30, 2007 10:46 AMThere is good and bad in every Political Party,Corporation,Business,Government Agency,etc...
The Carpenter's Union has afforded my family a good living wage,we have always had benefits,he has a pension,an annuity,healthcare when he retires,until Medicare kicks in and even between jobs he has banked hours so we are never without healthcare.
Is it perfect ? No. Is it better than Non- Union ? Yes. At least for our family. My husband has never been without work because he has a great reputation and knowledge.
Nothing in this world is perfect.What works for one ,may not be good for another. That's why we are free to choose who we work for and what we do for a living.
Mr. Jones , Thank You for the article. I have put it in a folder so I can go over it later. It had a link to the DOL and what Unions reported what and lots of other interesting things.I will go over it when I have the time. I definitely want to see the records on my husbands Union.Thanks again.
Posted by Carpenter's Wife on October 30, 2007 12:00 PMBig labor, big business, all the same, and all big business corps. are crooked in one way or another.
They couldn't retain their largeness or control they have without being crooked in some manner.
It is who knows who and who knows what when it comes to big labor every since I can remember.
And more than once bodies turned up somewhere.
J W , Just curios? What do you do for a living that none of these issues touch you?
Posted by Carpenter's Wife on October 30, 2007 01:57 PMCarpenter's Wife,
No problem - staying informed is the best defence.
I'm glad to see you are not with the cynics who accept corruption as normal behaviour.
Carpenter's Wife,
No problem - staying informed is the best defence.
I'm glad to see you are not with the cynics who accept corruption as normal behaviour.
Carpenter's Wife,
No problem - staying informed is the best defence.
I'm glad to see you are not with the cynics who accept corruption as normal behaviour.
JJ said three times:
I'm glad to see you are not with the cynics who accept corruption as normal behaviour.
Your strawman doesn't exist JJ, which is why your letter is pointless.
Show me someone who doesn't condemn corruption who isn't corrupt his/herself.
And by the way, I must have missed you condemning the corruption occurring in Iraq that has cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
We don't hear much about that from Republicans. Must be a conspiracy...
Posted by Charles B. on October 30, 2007 04:15 PMCharlesB
Show me someone who doesn't condemn corruption who isn't corrupt his/herself.
I can show you the contrary:
Of course there is corruption in Unions- just as there is in any business or government agency of any size. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.
Posted by Charles B. on October 29, 2007 04:35 PM
Posted by James Jones on October 30, 2007 04:59 PMJohn II: " In the end, no matter how corrupt a business may be, labor unions still owe their existence to business in addition to a bloated government. " That is exactly the point, the corruptness of the business and their exploitation of the labor is why labor unions came into existence. Without that corruptness and mistreatment of the employee they would not exist. If big business did not exploit and mistreat labor they would not need unions.
Did unions become corrupt? Sure some did. But there isnt a laborer in America today who would have decent wages, benefits and hours if it had not been for Unions.
For years, HP was reknown for treating their employees well, so well that the employees actually chased unions away from the HP plants. Unfortunately, HP no longer takes such an interest in the employees and they now have cast the employees aside like used tissues. They export American jobs to 3rd world countries and now expect the military to protect their interests when those 3rd world countries decide to take over the businesses. That military now being one of the few professions left in America for the masses. Ironic, those that can no longer get production jobs here find themselves defending the corporations who pulled those jobs out of America.
Joe Lunchbox,
What is "exploitation of of the labor"? If you feel you are being exploited unfairly, don't work for the employer. As I see it, labor exploits business.
By the way, everyone knows that labor unions increase the pay of their workers. The problems are (a) they reduce employment and (b) provide incentive for business to relocate. In other words, labor unions create a monopoly on labor thereby driving up labor costs and reducing the incentive to hire more workers.
Posted by John II on October 31, 2007 09:43 AMUnions are great! Just ask China. We are not China and if a business asks you to work 80 hrs a week, in unsafe working conditions and with no free dental plan-walk. This is America, you are not forced to work like this, there is no gun to your head. Seems the only gun is the one pointed at the employer-Hand over the medical prescription plan, or else!!
Posted by aliciala on October 31, 2007 11:25 AMAliciala and John II: Ahhhh yes, spoken like a couple of True businessmen, I gather you are employers who have never actually had to work in your lives. I pity your employees. Like true conservatives your solution is "if you dont like it get out'. Sure and the next time you stand to lose your overseas business dont ask for government help 'just get out'. I have a hunch you both like those illegal workers too, since they will work for pennies while greedy Americans want enough to support their families.
More jobs have left this country due to greedy employers & corporationsthan by greedy workers. I hope your kids enjoy those swell cheap toys made in China. Afterall how much can a little lead hurt? Kids need minerals for strong bones, right?
John II said:
"Labor unions do far worse damage to our children and workers than the Enron scandal ever did."
Care to quantify this or should I just assume it's another feather in your "I think it should be true, so it is true cap?
I think it would be easier for you to just say that you yearn for the Robber Baron era and be done.
Posted by Charles B. on October 31, 2007 12:26 PMWhiney laborers, ugh...let them eat cake! If they cant support their familes, then dont have so many kids. Better yet let them all leave the country, democracy is wasted on the common people. These whiney laborers are obviously democrats after our republican gold. Scrooge said it best, " are their no poor houses or better yet prisons for the working rabble?"
Posted by Ebenezer on October 31, 2007 12:30 PMJJ:
I condemn corruption categorically.
My point was that your letter had no point other than as a launching pad to condemn liberals.
There is also a matter of degree. Shall we compare how much Union corruption costs the typical family vs. how much business and government corruption costs them? All corruption is bad, but shouldn't we be equitable in how much capital we spend identifying and prosecuting corruption?
You have no argument other than to imply that I somehow perceive union corruption as less bad than other kinds, which is, of course, bullsh*t.
Posted by Charles B. on October 31, 2007 12:34 PMA note for readers of this forum:
Please keep in mind when reading any post by John II, that his primary motivation when discussing any issue is his bottom line material wealth.
He has no apparent ethical boundaries he would not cross if it means his bottom line would be padded.
Just something to keep in mind.
Posted by Charles B. on October 31, 2007 12:37 PMCharles B,
I see.
"I condemn corruption" categorically
But of course
"There is also a matter of degree."
So there are degrees of catagorical condmenation. That's only logical.
Much like your reasoning that a father should be allowed to marry his daughter but that of course does not mean society should tolerate incest.
It's remarkable that a man with so little imagination can be so creative in contradicting himself.
Posted by James Jones on October 31, 2007 05:40 PMJoe Lunchbox said:
"More jobs have left this country due to greedy employers & corporationsthan by greedy workers."
Liberals love to sound superbly righteous when labeling corporations as "greedy". They use the term as some kind of irrefutable argument against anything they don't like about the realities of economics and capitalism.
But, rational people already know about the greed of business. It is not some new revelation to them that those in business want to make a profit for themselves. In fact, Adam Smith wrote in 1776 about self interest of the businessman in his Wealth of Nations.
"He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it."
So, in response to Mr. Lunchbox's statement about greed, I'll say that greed on both parts - labor and employer - determines where a business will locate (or relocate) itself. Taxes also play a big part.
Labor wants higher profits in the form of wages while business wants higher profits in the form of revenue. In this context, each laborer negotiates with each employer for wages and work responsibilities. If the laborer is not satisfied with the arrangement, he is free to find a new employer. When the employer is not satisfied with the arrangement, it is free to find a new laborer.
But, when labor unites, it creates a monopoly on the labor supply. The employer now only has one source to find new labor: the labor union. With this new union, labor can now dictate higher wages and benefits. But, it cannot dictate the amount of laborers which an employer will employ. So, now that the employer has lost the ability to hire whomever it wants at whatever wage each laborer agrees to, it can only adjust the amount of labor it hires. Naturally, since the labor union has monopolized the labor supply, the employer responds by hiring less labor than it would sans unions.
Therefore, it is true that labor unions increase wages and benefits for it's workers. The question is, at what cost? Labor unions command a higher wage at the cost of higher unemployment. Where an employer was willing to hire 1000 workers at a variable wage rate, it now will hire just 700 workers at a constant, inflexible wage rate.
This inflexibility on the part of labor raises another risk: employer relocation. If workers in Detroit become too costly, employers relocate elsewhere. In the automobile industry, employers have shifted south. This hurts Detroit workers but is a great boon to southern workers. The greed of the Detroit workers drove business elsewhere.
This link shows migration of employers to south: http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-UAW0708-30.html
Both labor unions and employers are greedy. When an employer is forced to relocate, it is because the greed of labor unions overpowered employer's greed.
Posted by John II on October 31, 2007 06:17 PMIt sounds like Charles B. needs to take a hiatus from posting his whacked thoughts and spend a couple of ten years recording his little homo nature sounds and fixing up his attic for unnatural fornication with his "partner".
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
RELIGIOUS HATING HOMOS ARE PEOPLE TOO!
John II, let me guess, when you watch "Its a Wonderful Life" this holiday season I suppose you root for and identify with Potter, eh,,,and consider him the hero of the movie? Afterall those simple peasents and garlic eaters exist merely for his ability to make money do they not? I am also guessing that in the Christmas Carol, you perceive the 'old Scrooge" as the good one and cannot for the life of you figure out why he has to change? That damn lazy Cratchitt and his whining about the cold conditions, taking Christmas day off ( what a lazy ass!) and sniveling wages must drive you crazy! Instead why not pound a stack of holly through his heart, eh Johnny II?
Conservatives ( Corporations & Big Business) love to whine about 'their money' and 'greedy labor' and hating the idea of fair wages and benefits, they hate the idea of welfare in any form...EXCEPT for Corporate welfare which the current administration passes out in truckloads of cash and contracts to its buddies in big business. If profits were distributed fairly between labor and corpoate execs there would be less need for any government intervention.
Unions were the RESULT of greedy Corporations and Businesses. Corporations used the government to protect their greed for years until we got a few decent presidents to stand up to them. Without Unions, people would still be working 16 hour days for 10 cents a day alongside of their underage children (thats another great idea eh Johnny? No need to waste your taxes on schools that way). They lost their valuein the 50s and 60s when there was more of a partnership between labor and business, but they are desperately needed in todays world once again as Corporations plot to take away every right and benefit the workers fought for and received over the last 100 years.
Liberals have too much compassion and heart for your liking, then again Conservatives have too much greed and disregard for human suffering for my liking.
The funny thing is that somehow conservatives are the ones who pretend to be steeped in Church & Christianity, try reading the book sometime Johnny II. There is a crazy liberal in there named Jesus who has the audacity to have compassion for his fellow man ( obviosuly Jesus would have been a rotten businessman).
I repent..I am so utterly stupid and vile that I apologioze to everyone. I am not fit to live...I think it best if someone would just shoot me and make America a better place for all.
A pile of rotting cowmanure has more value than I ( oops sorry mother..I forget where I crawled out of...)
John,
I can tell you one difference. Marx never dreamed of putting anyone in a Gulag.
Posted by James Jones on November 1, 2007 09:56 AMBravo, Mr. Lunchbox. A fine speech! Let me know when you get off your soapbox so I can teach you basic economics. Then, maybe, you can go off and help your fellow man instead of pity him.
Your entire last post was complete nonsense. It lacked logic, facts, reason and rationality. It did pack plenty of nonsensical emotional statements. How typical of liberals.
By the way, this statement qualifies you as a socialist:
"My idea of Capitalism is that Labor shares in the venture"
You really have no idea what you're talking about, don't you? It's funny. I'm arguing against pure emotion. You're not even a socialist by study; you're a socialist because that is the default philosophy of the ignorant.
Labor does not share in the venture because labor does not take part in the risk. The investor takes on risk by purchasing shares in the venture. The investor's money can be wiped out, remain unchanged (which is loss because he could have put it somewhere with guaranteed returns), or converted into great profits. The laborer takes on no such risk. The laborer shows up, performs his duties, and goes home. He is compensated for his time and skills but not for his willingness to take a risk.
Posted by John II on November 1, 2007 02:01 PM