Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-23-2005, 11:50 AM
jnojr's Avatar
jnojr jnojr is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 7,999
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Basura Blanca:
I had a nifty little chart at one point that illustrated the disparities in wages between union and non-union jobs for several select trades. There was not a single example where a non-union employee was salaried higher than their union counterpart. In fact, IIRC, the biggest disparity in wage was that of union vs. non-union construction trade jobs which averaged nearly three times higher pay.
So... the labor cost is over three times higher, which jacks up the price of the finished house/building. Probably to the point where even those union construction workers can't afford one.

Unions were necessary once, but in most cases are simply hanging on to their source of wealth and power. They take money from the people they're supposed to be representing and then spend that money on liberal political donations that wind up making life harder on those very workers due to the increases in prices and taxes they pay. Then we have unions like the grocery store workers that do nothing but artificially inflate the wages paid to said workers. If ever there was a minimum wage job, that's it... but our Cheerios are $4.29 a box because everybody in the store is making $20 an hour plus full benefits.

I have never belonged to a union, and I have also never been "vicitmized". I don't make minimum wage. I make a very good living because I'm smart and a good worker, not because there's an organization just making sure I get a certain amount of money, regardless of the actual worth of my work.
__________________


San Diego FFLs | San Diego ranges
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-21-2005, 6:10 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

From the article:

Quote:
The biggest showdown could be over a so-called "paycheck protection" initiative, which would require labor unions to get permission from their members before using the money for political purposes. Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse the measure, which Democrats and union leaders have called a declaration of war on the labor movement.
...and that it is.

The hottest issue isn't the re-districting, it's the union-busting moves that AS and his corporate masters have schemed up here. For that, I hope and pray that it will ruin this governor.

Schwarzenegger's gall absolutely floors me. His endless spewing about "special interests" (which to him are unions and Indian casions), coupled with his complete disregard, if not outright denial, of his own real special interests makes me want to vomit.

Schwarzenegger wants to run CA public schools like a business.
...what an idiot.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-22-2005, 1:59 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by stator:
I was a member of the Teamsters while working in the north county of San Diego. When we unionized, we were being paid minimum wage. Union said, "pay your dues and we'll negotiate a better contract next year". Contract negotiations came around the following year, and......

we were still paid minimum wage. I always vote against the big union corporation and for the individual. Thus, I support the paycheck protection initiative. The little guy needs some power over both of his/her bosses.... employer and union bosses.
The power already exists though and AS's version of a "Paycheck Protection" act is actually redundant since union members already need to sign off on political uses of their dues. This has been long established, IIRC and most recently by the Supreme Court in (Beck v. CWA).

As for your personal experiences, Stator:

I had a nifty little chart at one point that illustrated the disparities in wages between union and non-union jobs for several select trades. There was not a single example where a non-union employee was salaried higher than their union counterpart. In fact, IIRC, the biggest disparity in wage was that of union vs. non-union construction trade jobs which averaged nearly three times higher pay. I'm not doubting your story, not at all, but in general, organized labor pays more to the individual than those not unionized.

As for the voting for the "little guy", I hear you, but the "little guy" is nothing under the foot of corporate power house companies that despise organized labor. United YOU stand.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-22-2005, 6:04 AM
stator's Avatar
stator stator is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 798
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I was a member of the Teamsters while working in the north county of San Diego. When we unionized, we were being paid minimum wage. Union said, "pay your dues and we'll negotiate a better contract next year". Contract negotiations came around the following year, and......

we were still paid minimum wage. I always vote against the big union corporation and for the individual. Thus, I support the paycheck protection initiative. The little guy needs some power over both of his/her bosses.... employer and union bosses.
__________________
**
3 Rules of Skeet: Head on the gun, eye on the target, and proper lead
M1a - If you can see it, you can hit it
Friends don't let friends vote demorat
Utah CCW permit holder
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-28-2005, 2:55 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by jnojr:
So... the labor cost is over three times higher, which jacks up the price of the finished house/building. Probably to the point where even those union construction workers can't afford one.
LOL.
The high price of housing has little to do with labor costs. Ever seen what the county takes from someone to develop a piece of property locally, J? It ain't a "couple hundred bucks" or something, nor is it quick and easy. You should know that pretty well as a resident of SD or else how do you explain the increase in prices for pre-existing housing?
Labor? LOL.

Quote:
Unions were necessary once,
Sure, people aren't getting killed by their employers anymore (ala Ludlow) if that's what you're implying, yet the necessity is still there. I can assure you of that. It's naive to think that the individual is going to keep his corporate powerhouse employer in check by himself.

Quote:
but in most cases are simply hanging on to their source of wealth and power.
How so? Both aspects come from the members.

Quote:
They take money from the people they're supposed to be representing and then spend that money on liberal political donations that wind up making life harder on those very workers due to the increases in prices and taxes they pay.
No, wrong. As I pointed out before, that's not true, but that won't keep Schwarzenegger from selling that bogus idea to the people willing to blindly accept it. Don't believe it.
How does organized labor lead to blanket tax increases, anyways? I think I see the formula: unions=democrats and democrats="tax & spend monsters", thus unions=increased taxes.
The flaws in that are too numerous to mention and besides, it's a hell of a stretch.

Quote:
Then we have unions like the grocery store workers that do nothing but artificially inflate the wages paid to said workers. If ever there was a minimum wage job, that's it... but our Cheerios are $4.29 a box because everybody in the store is making $20 an hour plus full benefits.
Again, labor costs at the consumer end of the literal "food chain" are hardly responsible for the cost of the goods themselves. If nothing else, the fuel surcharges being levied upon just about any business that gets a delivery (read: ALL of the them) is probably bigger than you imagine.
As for the UFCW in general, the point of Steve Turd forcing the issue to create the last strike and the subsequent lock-out at the other chains was to set the stage for devaluing the service industry labor as a whole. Trying to kill decent health benefits under the guise of "lost revenues" was a total sham since the stores were showing gaining profits prior to the dispute. Talk about tilling the soil for Walmart growth too. It was, as Turd himself said, "An investment in the future".
But more importantly, explain to me how more people earning less money somehow helps the economy? I can't figure that one out.

...and BTW, IIRC, the average pay in the grocery business is under $10 an hour, so it's simply not true that "everybody in the store is making $20 and hour plus full benefits".

...and if an outsider in your field of employment told you, "if ever there was a minimum wage job..." in reference to your work?

Quote:
I have never belonged to a union,
Neither have I.

Quote:
and I have also never been "vicitmized".
In that respect, I have. I've seen just how far companies (big & little ones) will go to exploit the working class. Some are downright evil.

Quote:
I don't make minimum wage. I make a very good living because I'm smart and a good worker,
The fallacy is that hard work always equals success and prosperity, yet the reality doesn't represent that fairy tale at all. There are plenty of folks working harder than you and I combined that make next to nothing (why does welfare look so much more inviting to some? hmmm...). Forget about a living wage, they aren't even to the point of "just scraping by" in spite of their best efforts.

Quote:
not because there's an organization just making sure I get a certain amount of money, regardless of the actual worth of my work.
Believe what you will, but that's hardly how it works.
Further, when the time to make "concessions" comes for you personally, you'll take them sitting down, right?
Afterall, the company always knows best.

The "unions" may very well suck, but the alternatives to organized labor are well worse, IMO.

As for Arnold's role in all this, follow the money and see who's really calling the shots on these proposals. Is it in the best interest of California? Or is it one that should be deemed "special" instead?
This coming from the governor who wasn't going to engage in partisan politics and could "not be bought by anyone" either.

I fail to see the fascination with this governor. He sucks. What more can I say?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-28-2005, 3:03 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
iTrader: / %
Default

Re: redistricting.

I'm in favor of a non-partisan panel -with solid criteria being met to assure that it is indeed neutral- drawing the district lines. Though, I'd prefer it not be limited to only "retired" judges as the Schwarzenegger backed initiative proposes. Why must Joe Citizen be excluded from the decision making? At least give the people some oversight in the process.

Plus, from what I've read about this, the way the lines are currently drawn doesn't necessarily just protect incumbencies for {D} candidates. It goes both ways. So for the one's here who still believe that {R}epublicans are the "best bet" for a gun-friendly environment in California, careful what you wish. It might come true someday.

Story
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-21-2005, 5:14 PM
bg bg is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Who cares
Posts: 5,211
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

This is about this special election business
AS is trying to push through. I agree with him
that the re-districting process needs to be
revamped. Remember it was Davis who drew the
lines last time and has helped the Dems stay
in power. I believe as pro-gun enthusiasts,
that a more even playing field would help
us keep some of these moronic bills brought
forth by the Dems/gun-banishment front at
bay.

There are other factors and issues involved
here, but clearly the Dems and others who
want OUR rights as gun owners banished,
are at serious odds over this.

AS at least is trying to get things a lil
on track, yet the Dems want nothing to do
with it.. Why not ? What do you think ?

http://www.yahoo.com/_ylh=X3oDMTEwdn...tY3Nz/s/240915
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:59 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.