Breaking News :Unanimous SCOTUS Decision

[JoelKatz]

They ain't American.

How does a dope dealer in Bogota or the owner of a boy brothel in Patpong get to have a say in how we run our country?

Get freaking real.

That's right, the American response to speech we disagree with is to shut the speaker up however we can. And, of course, we don't want any foreigners speaking to Americans. They might pollute our minds with their foreign ideas.

It's honestly very hard to tell whether you're being serious or whether you're intentionally making your arguments in such over the top ways that you don't intend them to be taken seriously or are trying to get people to reject them.

 

[leftysergeant]

Seems rather bizarre, if true.

Unions are groups of people and derive their life-power from numbers of members.

Corporations are entirely about wealth and their participation in politics gives a very few people vastly greater power than an equal number of non share holders in shaping the countrie's politics. There is no reason that slime like the Koch brothers should have more say in the future of America than have the teachers at your neighborhood school.

And there is no reason for a shareholder in Dubai to have any say in whether Patty Murray or Dino Rossi represents me in the Senate.

 

[JoelKatz]

There is no reason that slime like the Koch brothers should have more say in the future of America than have the teachers at your neighborhood school.

Ah, so the right to speak should be given only to those who would use it for good and not for those who would say things with which you disagree.

And there is no reason for a shareholder in Dubai to have any say in whether Patty Murray or Dino Rossi represents me in the Senate.

Right, so we need to make sure they don't give you any information or arguments that you might find persuasive. We need to make sure the electorate is as ignorant as possible, and what better way than to muzzle those who might say bad things to the electorate.

These arguments would be quite at home in Dubai.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Unions are groups of people and derive their life-power from numbers of members.

Corporations are entirely about wealth and their participation in politics gives a very few people vastly greater power than an equal number of non share holders in shaping the countrie's politics. There is no reason that slime like the Koch brothers should have more say in the future of America than have the teachers at your neighborhood school.

And there is no reason for a shareholder in Dubai to have any say in whether Patty Murray or Dino Rossi represents me in the Senate.

Unions are corporations.

 

[leftysergeant]

Unions are corporations.

Non-profits whose influence is derived entirely by the numbers of people they represent, democraticly-controlled and representative of their members.

Corporations are representative of the wealth of their shareholders.

And they are not representative of only those who have a right to speak here.

Screw the shareholders from Dubai, Belarus and China.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Non-profits whose influence is derived entirely by the numbers of people they represent, democraticly-controlled and representative of their members.

Corporations are representative of the wealth of their shareholders.

And they are not representative of only those who have a right to speak here.

Screw the shareholders from Dubai, Belarus and China.

Wait, you think Unions only provide their services to citizens who have the vote? They represent legal, as well as illegal, immigrants too, as well as felons who have lost the vote.

Or by, "speak" did you mean literally speak? In which case you ought to be reminded that all people have the right to speak in the US.

 

[leftysergeant]

Or by, "speak" did you mean literally speak? In which case you ought to be reminded that all people have the right to speak in the US.

Yeah, but if you do not have access to the mass media the useless class can use their money to shout you down. Unions are a way around that.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Do you think unions ought to be able to contribute money to campaigns?

It's a good strategy, get rights to spend unlimited money to political campaigns for both unions and corporations..then destroy the unions.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But, you see, Unions have a democratically elected Board which carries out the wishes of the the members who have paid their dues, while
Corporations only have an elected Board which carries out the wishes of the money-grubbing Stockholders...

Wait. What?

Not even close to the same things. Union members have only one vote in each meeting and they all are treated the same. Stock holder's votes count more or less based on the amount of stocks that person has in the company.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Unions are groups of people and derive their life-power from numbers of members.

Corporations are groups of people and derive their life-power from numbers of shareholders.

There is no reason that slime like the Koch brothers should have more say in the future of America than have the teachers at your neighborhood school.

But I guess it was OK for Jimmy Hoffa to have a say? I thought so.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Unions are corporations.

Stop cluttering the thread with facts!

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Non-profits whose influence is derived entirely by the numbers of people they represent, democraticly-controlled and representative of their members.

So a corporate board of directors doesn't represent the shareholders? Really?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Not even close to the same things. Union members have only one vote in each meeting and they all are treated the same. Stock holder's votes count more or less based on the amount of stocks that person has in the company.

As it should be. Someone who owns 10% of the company should have 10% of the vote.

 

[gnome]

The point is, I think, that it is not practice that someone in a union to be assigned more influence according to how much cash they put into it, which is a significant difference from a corporation.

 

[JoelKatz]

The point is, I think, that it is not practice that someone in a union to be assigned more influence according to how much cash they put into it, which is a significant difference from a corporation.

This is an extremely minor difference between unions and corporations. Unions and corporations are both ways that people organize to effectively do as a group what they couldn't do nearly as well as individuals. The particulars of how they organize internally should really be irrelevant. In both cases, individuals choose the form of organization most conducive to achieving their objectives.

Fundamentally, unions exist to personally enrich their members by improving their bargaining position relative to their employers thereby permitting the employees to obtain employment on better terms than otherwise. Without unions, in the majority of cases, the bargaining position of employees would be much weaker to that of their employers.

 

[thaiboxerken]

As it should be. Someone who owns 10% of the company should have 10% of the vote.

To compare unions to corporations is silly because of this fact.

 

[leftysergeant]

So a corporate board of directors doesn't represent the shareholders? Really?

They represent what a few people with entirely too much money want. (Which is usually a better chance to seral labor and natural resources.) I will point out again that those fat slobs may not even be US citizens and thus have no inherent right to influence our politics.

Unions represent hundreds of working-class people who would have no voice on the airwaves alone.

 

[leftysergeant]

Fundamentally, unions exist to personally enrich their members by improving their bargaining position relative to their employers thereby permitting the employees to obtain employment on better terms than otherwise. Without unions, in the majority of cases, the bargaining position of employees would be much weaker to that of their employers.

You left out the very important health and safety aspects.

Weak argument. You dismiss them too lightly.

 

[JoelKatz]

You left out the very important health and safety aspects.

Weak argument. You dismiss them too lightly.

I don't see how I left that out or dismissed them. In theory, workers could individually negotiate those health and safety aspects, and in theory employers who provide inferior health and safety for their workers would have to pay more to get people to work in the inferior conditions. However, in practice, the workers need to be organized in order to bargain effectively.

I think you're concluding that I left them out because you think that "personal enrichment" must be a bad thing and therefore I can't have included it. But statistically, and in reality, better health and safety conditions personally enrich the workers. In many cases, it enriches the employers too, but not always. Enrichment is a good thing, not a bad thing.

To some extent, worker health and safety improvements can be win/win. Unhealthy working conditions don't benefit employer's very much and accidents cost in productivity as well. But corporations seek these same win/win arrangements in much the same way and for the same reasons.

 

[leftysergeant]

To some extent, worker health and safety improvements can be win/win. Unhealthy working conditions don't benefit employer's very much and accidents cost in productivity as well. But corporations seek these same win/win arrangements in much the same way and for the same reasons.

Tell that to ther families of the men whom Don Blankenship murdered because it was more cost-effective to just pay a fine than to install proper ventilation in his non-union coal mine.

You give corporate slime too much credit for morality and common sense.