Instead of the Yahoo! Comments section, I’ve been on a Facebook Comments bender. The “Being Liberal” page is infiltrated by Conservatives who irritate the crap out of me. Come on. The page is called, “Being Liberal.” They come on there and regurgitate whatever Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin said as a way to “prove” how stupid Liberals are. I usually tell them to take the condescension and shove it because they’re on our turf.
*sigh* When I first “Liked” the page, I enjoyed reading the comments of like-minded Liberals. The Conservatives just ruin it for me with their Liberal-bashing. I should stay in the blog world, but I was lured back into Lucifer’s lair.
The hot topics have been the Fiscal Cliff and the fiasco that is Michigan’s Right to Work Law. We’re inching toward the Fiscal Cliff, and I am praying that Obama doesn’t cave. I think he won’t because he is now emboldened with the win and the fact that there are no more political consequences for him. Before he agrees to any spending cuts, generating revenue via increasing taxes for the wealthy better be carved in stone and painted with the blood of dead plutocrats.
I believe that spending cuts are necessary. But so are those tax increases. If you’re broke, you can cut your expenses to the bone. To actually stop being perpetually broke, you need to earn more money. Same thing here. It’s not all about spending cuts or taxes. It’s both. However, I personally don’t trust the GOP farther than I can throw them, so Obama should take the carved in stone/blood suggestion above.
The fight didn’t end on election day, as we have seen in that disastrous Right to Work Law. Let’s see. You can choose not to be in a union, but still get the benefits of the same pay as a union worker and health benefits. You just don’t have to pay dues. Hmm. And Conservatives call us the freeloaders? Like I said in the comments section:
God forbid workers should have a living wage and good benefits. I swear to God the way a lot Conservatives are talking, they won’t be happy until people are indentured servants to the almighty job creators.
I need to be back here in blog world. There are posts of substance here – both sides. Those comments sections do nothing but make my blood pressure rise. My sister asked at lunch on Saturday, “Do we have to ban you from another site?” Heh. Looks like it. I’ll try and cut down. I promise!
Spinny Liberal 
December 12th, 2012 at 1:15 AM
Sad to say trolls are everywhere…I do not mind a disagreement but insulting crap is just lazy…..the same type of thing has happened on discussion forums……I like my blog and the responses that I get…this is a good place to vent…..
December 13th, 2012 at 9:20 PM
Heh. Lazy – nice way of putting it. And you’re right about the blog. It is a great place to vent. Healthier than Facebook, that’s for sure.
December 12th, 2012 at 5:12 AM
Dialogue … the many situations need insightful dialogue. Sometimes the better solution is on one side … other times its a combination – the middle ground – the compromise …. and other times it is where neither is looking, thus will never see it because they are spending so much time defending their turf.
December 13th, 2012 at 9:25 PM
I guess they don’t want dialogue because insulting is not the greatest way to invite someone into a conversation. You’re totally right. When I’m there, I’m about defending our turf. I should engage in more dialogue…with the respectful ones. I did engage with a respectful one who turned out to be really cool. He’s like you – Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative. 🙂
December 12th, 2012 at 5:26 AM
I did a several month stint at Facebook but finally tore myself away. I was being addictive and feeling fragmented. A lot like television, which I quit over a year ago. Same reasons. All too piecemeal.
December 13th, 2012 at 9:26 PM
Smart move, Ric. It just isn’t healthy.
December 13th, 2012 at 7:12 AM
Spinny,
Right-to-work does not bust unions, limit collective bargaining, or forestall efforts to organize. It’s purpose is to give workers a choice they’re entitled to have. And liberals are supposedly big on choice, so I can’t understand why you oppose it so vociferously.
It’s simply unconstitutional to force someone to give a portion of their paycheck to an organization with whom they may disagree. It is a complete usurpation of one’s freedom of association. Some of our Founders agreed. Thomas Jefferson said, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.”
Of course, I understand your argument. There will be a “free rider” problem. But I’m obliged to wonder if you believe the problem of “forced unionization” is anymore desirable – and if so, why? It’s unconstitutional.
I won’t stop there, because it would be remiss to overlook right-to-work’s economic benefits. Quite simply, right-to-work states have the lowest unemployment in the nation. In contrast, Michigan’s unemployment hovers nearly two-percent above the national average. And while it’s true that companies look at more than just right-to-work laws before investing, right-to-work states are generally regarded as all-around friendly to business.
It’s oft-said that right-to-work gives one the right to work for less money, but this is just a leftwing slogan not grounded in reality. Even without right-to-work laws, the existence of unions lowers wages for non-union employees. So the overall wage benefits of unions is not immediately clear.
For the sake of argument, however, let’s agree that average income in right-to-work states is lower because of weaker unions. Let’s say the average income in a RTW state is $43,000 a year, and in non-RTW states, it’s $49,000 a year. Well, guess what? Cost of living expenses are much lower in RTW states. Here
You want to talk about fairness, equality, and spreading around the wealth? In RTW states, more people are earning $43,000 a year because more people are working. That’s capitalist way of spreading wealth around.
Right-to-work is just common sense.
December 13th, 2012 at 9:39 PM
Hey T!
Nice to see you around these parts even though it seems I haven’t been around these parts. 😆 Anyway, since Right to Work is law now in Michigan, those who are hired and choose not to join a union shouldn’t get the same rate of pay, benefits, etc. When there is a negotiation and the pay goes up, the opt out person’s doesn’t. If the union fights for the employees to keep the contribution to their benefits the same rate and wins, the opt out person’s contribution goes up.
December 14th, 2012 at 5:46 AM
Spinny,
It might seem like a massive contradiction, but I wouldn’t have a problem with that. I support right-to-work because I think people should be given a choice, not because I’m opposed to unions.
So, sure, if you choose not to join the union, you live with the consequences.
December 18th, 2012 at 4:47 PM
Spreading the wealth around is common sense? Sounds more like comm…unism to me. Perhaps there’s some hope for you yet.
Actually, “Right to Work” is NOT common sense. If such logic was common, we’d all be in favour of it. We aren’t. The truth is that “Right To Work” is a complete misnomer.
First, it in NO way affects your actual right to work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_work There is no employment opportunity advantage to either situation. In both cases, you get hired, or you don’t. All that is affected is your desire to choose to work there. If individual prospective workers had such control over EVERY desire they had for their future workplace situation, perhaps then you could legitimately call “Right To Work” workers’ rights legislation. (or maybe even Communism.)
Such legislation is closer to the opposite of workers’ rights. Such legislation is pushed by businesses in order to put downward pressure on unions, so they can drive wages and benefits lower. Getting a state to become “Right To Work” gives douche-bag corporations even more workplace leverage. They can say “Do exactly what we want, or we’ll move to a Right To Work state where we can treat workers almost as shitty as the
slavesworkers in Asia.”Here’s an excellent example. Caterpillar, a massive douche-bag corporation that made $4.9 billion in profits, demanded a 50% wage cut at a plant in closed-shop Canuckistan or they’d move to “Right to Work” state, Indiana. That’s exactly what happened.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1125718–electro-motive-to-close-london-locomotive-plant
This increased leverage dynamic is almost certainly why “Right To Work” states appear to be doing better in raw jobs, but worse in average income. It’s because douche-bag corporations are using the legislation they pushed for to force workers into a game of limbo. How low can you go? The “winner” gets whatever jobs are left in North America. The loser? Hey, who gives a fuck?
This policy is what I’d call a perfectly designed corporate-government policy. Politicians and corporations work together to get what they both want at the expense of the average citizen. One gets more profit and the other get stats with a positive local spin (not to mention campaign donations that assure their own job security). Neither care that their gains come directly at the expense of others. It’s also worth noting that the workers who gain jobs don’t gain nearly what the ex-workers lost, which is the entire point of the policy!
However, many wilfully blinded ideologues will try to claim that this isn’t the point of “Right To Work”. They claim this is about “workers choice”, as if every American worker is somehow forced to join a union. That assertion is laughable. Only about 11% of Americans (and that’s just includes those with jobs!) are in unions. Less than 7% are in private sector unions. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.nr0.htm Considering unionization rates are historically low and continue to decline, even if this so-called choice “problem” wasn’t complete bullshit, is it even worth legislating against?
How many of these small numbers of unionized workers were “forced” against their will into accepting the better wages, benefits and working conditions union membership provides? A few hundred morons a year, maybe? Well, if it ain’t about union busting, this policy must be designed for these small numbers of morons. Your government at work, folks. What’s next? Legislation to cover the medical bills of base-jumpers who buy discount parachutes?
The fact is workers already have the choice to avoid being union members. The only thing stopping the worker from working is the worker’s own personal bias against unions. The “right to choose” is already there. Take the job and what comes with it, or say no to the job. You’ll still be left with 90% of the jobs in America to choose from.
Maybe I’m sort of some fiscally conservative, individual responsibility, junkie, but I don’t think you should get the rewards of something without having to pay for it. Everyone should, ironically enough, “pay their dues”. If workers can get to choose not to pay dues and still collect benefits of membership, than the worker gets something for nothing. Actual common sense dictates that an opportunity to get something for nothing would encourage people to do so. As a result, the union is deprived something it worked to get, a majority vote of workers that results in a democratically reversible closed-shop. It also loses the income it requires to function and, with fewer members, some of its collective bargaining power.
Hey, I’d like to be a member of the local Hunt Club without having to pay the 5 digit annual membership fee too. But they’re not so keen on the idea of membership privileges without membership either. (Perhaps they’re socialists too?) Does that mean the government should pass a law defending my “choice” to play golf and drink fine wine without paying membership dues? Come to think of it, I’m sure a lot of Americans would like to have the benefits of a health insurance card they didn’t have to pay for either.
As for the part about a worker objecting to the way unions spend the money earned from a business transaction (aka employment), I’m sure that, if people knew how every penny was spent (bonuses, campaign donations, office renos, etc.), countless millions would object to the way corporations spend the money from their pay-cheques they gave them in business transactions (aka purchases) Just as nobody is forced to buy products from a given corporation, nobody is forced to work for a given corporation, Why is one situation any less of a voluntary choice than the other? Why does one moral conundrum require legislation when the other doesn’t? In both cases, the choice to hand over money to an organization whose actions you may not agree with is already there.
In conclusion to this rant (that’s 10X longer than intended), “Right To Work” is either an attempt to solve a problem that doesn’t really exist, or it’s an attempt to further crush the clout of unions and, by extension, workers.
December 18th, 2012 at 1:34 PM
Like I always say, Spinny, that’s what you get for going on Loserbook.
Because Facebook is popular only because it’s popular, you get endless supplies of morons and fucktards who latch onto whatever service, ideology, cultural product, etc that’s popular. and they wishfully think it will make them popular, or give them the false impression that they have “Friends”.
Most of these knee-jerking jerkwads can barely string two sentences together, but they will use those two quasi-literate sentences to display their vast ignorance in the most irritating (instantaneous and continuous) ways possible.