Opinion how are unions not a right wing thing?

It's an old dynamic. Well off white guys battled organized labor. I'm not even making the post, but I'm pretty sure the money is about to switch it up, either to see if it can, or because pro right talk is being limited and marginalized, and moving unions to the right would make them easier to propagandist against. The left just listens to their phones; end of story there, so they can be switched easily against those dirty blue collar deplorables.

Yeah. Because the union organizers and lawyers as well as their union-backed politicians weren't also well off white guys.

It's like the idea that Democrats represent the poor. They are richer than Republicans in Congress.
 
Anyone who claims the teachers unions don't protect bad teachers, are far-left and have helped lower the standards of education in this country...

Sorry, but that statement really needs to be sourced.

I see the problem now. You put together 3 different statements about teacher's unions. 2 of them are generally discussed, the 3rd is out of left field. When you're asked to source your claims, you allege that because 2 of them are common knowledge, the 3rd must be as well.

It's not.
 
Sorry, but that statement really needs to be sourced.

I see the problem now. You put together 3 different statements about teacher's unions. 2 of them are generally discussed, the 3rd is out of left field. When you're asked to source your claims, you allege that because 2 of them are common knowledge, the 3rd must be as well.

It's not.

Common Core is enough of an example for anyone. Although I'm sure the people in this thread don't even know what that is.
 
Although in the end, it was liberals in this country not expecting black kids to catch up after desegregation in the South that is really the root of all the problems with public education today.

Yet another statement that you're going to have to source. Anyone with a passing knowledge of post-integration effects on the education space would immediately red-flag that statement as either an outright lie or a really bad lack of knowledge of history.
 
Yet another statement that you're going to have to source. Anyone with a passing knowledge of post-integration effects on the education space would immediately red-flag that statement as either an outright lie or a really bad lack of knowledge of history.

So to be clear, public education in America wasn't among the best in the world before desegregation? It was as lowly rated as now? Before this obsession with graduation rates and social promotions and all that nonsense.
 
Yeah. Because the union organizers and lawyers as well as their union-backed politicians weren't also well off white guys.

It's like the idea that Democrats represent the poor. They are richer than Republicans in Congress.
Well you're talking about the last 8 years, and ignoring the previous 50. But yes, the democrats, run by the same money, are slowly leaving what they were supposed to stand for for identity politics..

So they are completely useless, but have convinced their constituents that A. They can make an easier living by being part of some victim group, having extra rights and being "protected," which of course is a scam, or B. As one of the very few non-victim peoples, they can have an easier life by pretending everything the others say is true, and being their ally against other people like them.
 
they're an embodiment of a group that is fighting for families to have the means to provide.
They stand up for ''real'' america, the people who work blue collar jobs at factories.
Busting unions has led to decrease in benefits, job stability and wage losses. All these factors hinder the chances people have at taking care of a family, the cornerstone of most of the rights values.
I think if many candidates came out as pro union they could even sway a lot of voters. . .

has it always been this way? When did the right start union busting? Was it with R.R?

Why would the right-wing care about peasants?
 
Why would the right-wing care about peasants?
Why would anyone in power give a shit about peasants? For that matter, most of Congress both the House and Senate are multi millionaires and all live basically full time in DC. HOW THE FUCK DO ANY OF THEM KNOW WHAT A COMMON PERSON WANTS/NEEDS?!
 
Common Core is enough of an example for anyone. Although I'm sure the people in this thread don't even know what that is.

Got it. For the future, if you're going to troll, don't do it in a way that makes you look unintelligent...or was that the goal?
 
You see, forcing schools to keep bad teachers and lowering standards is responsible for public education in the US becoming so embarrassing. It's the same issue.

Although in the end, it was liberals in this country not expecting black kids to catch up after desegregation in the South that is really the root of all the problems with public education today. Giving birth to this mentality of passing kids at all costs and social promotions and all that nonsense.
The problem is that you are making opinions with shaky premises. Here's your argument:
P1: American public education is bad
P2: Bad teachers are largely responsible for lower education quality
P3: Unions allow bad teachers to stay employed
C1: Unions are largely responsible for bad public education

Let's dissect the argument
P1: Is American Public education bad? If it is, what is are examples or characteristics of "good" systems?
P2: If you were to rank some of the factors that can effect a student's education, and where does the teacher's quality rank on that list?
P2: What are the characteristics of teachers in a good system?
P3: Is this true?
P3: Are "good" systems identified in P1 universally non-unionized?
 
they're an embodiment of a group that is fighting for families to have the means to provide.
They stand up for ''real'' america, the people who work blue collar jobs at factories.
Busting unions has led to decrease in benefits, job stability and wage losses. All these factors hinder the chances people have at taking care of a family, the cornerstone of most of the rights values.
I think if many candidates came out as pro union they could even sway a lot of voters. . .

has it always been this way? When did the right start union busting? Was it with R.R?
Since when has the right wing fought for the working class? The irony is most working class are right wing because the left will "taker our guns and love teh gays!"
 
they're an embodiment of a group that is fighting for families to have the means to provide.
They stand up for ''real'' america, the people who work blue collar jobs at factories.
Busting unions has led to decrease in benefits, job stability and wage losses. All these factors hinder the chances people have at taking care of a family, the cornerstone of most of the rights values.
I think if many candidates came out as pro union they could even sway a lot of voters. . .

has it always been this way? When did the right start union busting? Was it with R.R?

Most "right wing" voters don't even support the majority of Republican policies. If the left wing was moderate, we would have a completely blue government, but the left wing has gone insane. This is why I stay home every election and do better things with my time.
 
Most "right wing" voters don't even support the majority of Republican policies. If the left wing was moderate, we would have a completely blue government, but the left wing has gone insane. This is why I stay home every election and do better things with my time.
why not at least vote for a 3rd party candidate to show your disdain?
 
why not at least vote for a 3rd party candidate to show your disdain?

legitimate third party movements will start locally and be funded locally. Time is better spent developing clout in community rather than the theater called the federal goverment.
 
Why would the right defend unions, when unions routinely funnel money into the warchests of their political rivals?

What's sad is that I would bet a few bucks that if you removed the Unions ability to donate to and do private campaigning for politicians that the Democrats would abandon them in a heartbeat as well. (Granted I don't think they should be allowed to regardless, but thats a different topic entirely).
 
they're an embodiment of a group that is fighting for families to have the means to provide.
They stand up for ''real'' america, the people who work blue collar jobs at factories.
Busting unions has led to decrease in benefits, job stability and wage losses. All these factors hinder the chances people have at taking care of a family, the cornerstone of most of the rights values.
I think if many candidates came out as pro union they could even sway a lot of voters. . .

has it always been this way? When did the right start union busting? Was it with R.R?
Unions started out as a good thing, they helped rid the workplace of horrific conditions. Today unions are too powerful and mostly just about the money.
 
i mean this with no malice against republicans, but they've done a masterful job at convincing union voters and union states to vote against their interest. part of it is democrats essentially abandoned unions as a primary focus of their policies and allowed corporations to run fleeing to third world countries for cheap labor without any consequences. no tariffs, no tax increases, nothing.

so why wouldn't a corporation do that? morality and business ethics has zero relevancy when corporations make these decisions. they'll happily do anything to increase profit margins. and we watched all this happen for decades and did nothing. so now people feel broken and alone, and republicans saw this vulnerability. they filled that "explain this for me why my life is shit and there's no work" void with pointing at illegal immigrants (who have absolutely nothing to do with the state of their job issues). but when people are angry, distraught and desperate, yea, they don't always make rational decisions.

but the republican goal is to dismantle unions. already, the supreme court started that snowball with the janus v. afscme case where you can't be compelled to pay union dues for free speech reservations. with time, they'll be completely dismantled or weakened to such a point that they are no longer relevant in modern day politics, and that's going to reshape the entire political landscape.

no unions means lower wages, less benefits. it means more job insecurity and less savings. it means newer generations of people will be worse off than their parents generation. and somehow, republicans convinced people in union states that despite all these outcomes, they are the ones they should vote for. so yea, we are heading towards a more dystopian future where the rich rule everything and the poor grovel to get by. which, in actuality, has been the norm of human existence. a rich and vibrant middle class is an anomaly that results when bargaining power shifts tremendously, like post ww2 or after the bubonic plague.

that's where we are heading. to avoid it, you need a progressive candidate like bernie who may or may not correct that path. but it requires government intervention and regulation, which has many issues and problems itself. because it's not as though bureaucracy is some magical and efficient creature. but it's the only tools available to artificially maintain a middle class. a free market approach simply doesn't, it naturally gravitates and shifts wealth and power to the top. it's why we have bad education, bad health care, bad consumer products, high rent, everything. greed is king, and greed is unsustainable and pretty morally repugnant when society revolves around it. but it's a system where the wealthy can maintain power and control because it's that inherently unfair of a system.

so if unions matter to you, and the health and overall well being of lower and middle class people matter to you, you simply have no choice but to vote democrat. even that won't guarantee you good results, but it is better than a republican. but if you want a free for all society and people are eating at each other, republicans will be happy to gift you that world. it'll be a brutal one, but obviously some people who post here salivate at the thought of that opportunity.
 
I'm in a large union. It's next to impossible to fire the laziest motherfuckers.
 
Back
Top