Union vs Non-Union posters

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonSportsFan111. Show BostonSportsFan111's posts

    Union vs Non-Union posters

    I have been reading through several of the posts and there is definitely a pro-union vs pro-owner split here. My guess is that would go along with what type of work each person does, and that helps determine whether you see the owners point of view or the players side of things. Having spent 9 years in the Teamsters working for the big brown package delivery team, and then getting out of the union (personal choice) and taking my life in a totally different direction (now doing IT work at a small finacial services company), I have been on both sides of the arguement. Personally, I never liked the union or being a part of it, it just happened to be the best paying job out there when I needed a job 25 years ago. Too many of the guys felt they worked for the Teamsters and not for UPS. Most of those guys could not have done anything else using their brains to make the kind of money and benefits UPS (NOT the union) paid them. UPS assumed all of the overhead and risk for all of the equiptment, buildings, vehicles, paid the salaries, benefits and pensions (funny, the union people would like you to believe it is the union who provides the benefits/pensions, but it is the employer who pays for these things). I have jumped jobs several times since I left UPS, and am much happier being my own free agent, without having to be 'collectively bargained' for. I'd be interested to hear what you all do for work and which side of the issue you are on (Prolate S. and BB I already know where you stand).

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from unclealfie. Show unclealfie's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Union vs Non-Union posters:
    I have been reading through several of the posts and there is definitely a pro-union vs pro-owner split here. My guess is that would go along with what type of work each person does, and that helps determine whether you see the owners point of view or the players side of things. Having spent 9 years in the Teamsters working for the big brown package delivery team, and then getting out of the union (personal choice) and taking my life in a totally different direction (now doing IT work at a small finacial services company), I have been on both sides of the arguement. Personally, I never liked the union or being a part of it, it just happened to be the best paying job out there when I needed a job 25 years ago. Too many of the guys felt they worked for the Teamsters and not for UPS. Most of those guys could not have done anything else using their brains to make the kind of money and benefits UPS (NOT the union) paid them. UPS assumed all of the overhead and risk for all of the equiptment, buildings, vehicles, paid the salaries, benefits and pensions (funny, the union people would like you to believe it is the union who provides the benefits/pensions, but it is the employer who pays for these things). I have jumped jobs several times since I left UPS, and am much happier being my own free agent, without having to be 'collectively bargained' for. I'd be interested to hear what you all do for work and which side of the issue you are on (Prolate S. and BB I already know where you stand).
    Posted by BostonSportsFan111


    Good post, Boston.

    I've also been on both sides of the equation but I think there's also a strong connection between sides takebn in the NFL argument and personal politics. I see a clear connection  between conservatives favoring owners and liberals favoring players.

    For the most part, this is pretty much the other side of the same union/owner coin, but clearly there is a pattern here.

    The former truck driver and electric lineman side of me is all union but the former attorney and manager side is all owner.

    I also have to say that what sympathy I did harbor for the union side was largely destroyed by watching the disgraceful conduct of both members and politicians in Wisconsin recently.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    I'm a research engineer (funny how I never hear about any scientist unions).

    My view is that certain unions are good (miners union being a good example). They typically ask for competitive wages that are similar to their non-union counter parts and their main fights are higher death benefits for their families and more health-care coverage considering the work in a high risk environment.

    Then there are a majority of corrupt unions which the union members blindly follow the heads without questioning. I consider most MA unions in this light that they wait until their employers can't afford to do without them or start a job then threaten to strike half way through because they have added leverage. These types of unions the employees are paid drastically more (15% and up) compared to their non union counter parts which will include pensions paid for by the employer and sometimes includes full benefits. However, it is important to note that some of these types of unions the fees paid to the union means that some of these employees net incomes can be the same or less then non union members. Which begs the question where the money goes. The majority gets pumped into paying for lawyers, heads of union, and politics to ensure they consistently get favorable deals for the union (not always for the benefit of the members) at the expense of everyone else paying for these favorable deals namely the tax payers or consumers of the goods.

    In this specific case I originally sided with the players but after recent events in which it looks like the owners were willing to negotiate and made a decent last minute offer which included long term health care and added benefits for retired players that the union was hell bent on bringing it to court once they knew they had a favorable ruling and felt public support was behind them. This latest news with the draft left an even big sour taste in my mouth basically ordering future members to skip the biggest event in their lives to gain the slightest amount of leverage against the owners.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from thehub. Show thehub's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters:
    [

    I am not for unions in general. However, they do serve a pupose for some. Perhaps like HOA's they have too much power?

    Created to do good and sometimes do, but the power turns ugly and does harm. Sorta like big companies, sometimes they do good and sometimes greed gets the best of them.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from prolate0spheroid. Show prolate0spheroid's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    I'm not in a union . . . and was only in one for a year or so when I had a student job in college that was unionized. 

    While I've been defending the players, I actually have mixed opinions about unions. A lot of them are pains in the butt . . . especially when they insist on overly restrictive work rules or when they protect people who really should be fired. 

    At the same time, I think laborers really should have more of a say in what happens in their companies.  I don't think it's quite right when a CEO who has worked at a company two or three years can decide pretty much on his own (with the help of high-paid consultants of course) to outsource the jobs of thousands of people who maybe have devoted 15, 20, 30 years to the company and whose lives could very well be devastated by the CEO's decision. I think the workers should at least have some say in what happens to them and their interests should have to be considered before such decisions are made. I also think workers should have some power to defend their right to wages and benefits that were promised them when they were hired. Everything has to be balanced against the company's long-term financial health--but right now there is very little balance because workers have very little say in any of this. 

    In the football dispute, I don't mind the owners asking for concessions if they need them to keep the business healthy. But I think there's nothing wrong with the players asking them to open their books.  It's that balance thing. If you want the players to be partners and grant you concessions then treat them as partners.  I don't think the owners did that. And that's why I tend to favor the players in this particular dispute. 

    As far as my own job . . . I've got a pretty good gig in one of those big global management consulting firms . . . 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from tenacioust. Show tenacioust's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    I'm a male model/Secret Agent/waiter at Applebees
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Stommmper. Show Stommmper's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters:
    I'm a male model/Secret Agent/waiter at Applebees
    Posted by tenacioust
    LMAO...
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from 00chief00. Show 00chief00's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    unions are one of the reasons alot of our jobs got shipped overseas, where cheap labor and non union people can be taken advantage of. unions could have a benefit, but generally they get corrupted by the leaders who want more then they deserve, and stop representing the people that elected them.

    I generally side with the owners on pro sports debates, as I feel the players generally dont have a firm grasp on reality when it comes to negotiations.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Jedi33. Show Jedi33's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    back in the day  before unions  there were no worker rights u could work like 6o hrs a week in bad working conditions and  get paid very little. becasue of unions we now hav the standard 40hr work week and better worker rights and working conditions , now a days though greed  and corruption hav tainted unions.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    I've worked my butt off in the private sector since graduating college, if not before college and during, for that matter.

    I am in business development in the pharmaceutical industry, but I have been in other industries before, doing similar kind of work, from everything from sales/bd to procurement/materials management, etc.

    I am FOR the worker (I am one), but not in favor of unions in this day and age.

    When it comes to CEO abuse, I am right there with people who can see it and aren't happy about it, but that's also a separate discussion when it comes to what unions mean in this day and age.

    More unions wouldn't have stopped cutting costs by outsourcing to 3rd world countries.

    The issue I have with CEOs is pretending outsourcing is somehow a magical solution in cutting costs and they succeeded in "growing" their business because of it.

    But, that's another discussion.

    I feel with competition (in a normal economy), your skill set and merits can be shopped around, so you can stand behind who you are as an individual in the context of what you do, not stand behind a bunch of lawyers who waste your money and the companies pretending they protect you.

    Unions also mask underperforming employees, which helps no one, including you.

    When the Industrial Revolution crawled out from the ashes of the Englightenment Period, some 100 years previously, the common worker was abused badly because of new inventions creating a need for labor on a mass scale.

    It was a free for all, obviously. No regulations, no rules, no respect, and way, way too many monopolies. 

    With government finally addressing a lot of these abuses by the time Roosevelt became president in 1901, some semblance of employee respect was established.  It was slow, but just like everything else in this country, we usually get it right when it's all said and done. Not perfect, but improvement can be seen.

    I would have been on the side of a union in the late 1800s/early, even mid 1900s, but not now.

    I agree with PatsEng. I feel a miners' union is basically necessary as a way to keep companies in check simply because of the nature of that business.

    You can't shop yourself as a miner and move somewhere else. You're a miner, basically bound to the job where you live.

    Generally speaking, though, unions do more harm than good in this day and age. 

    Lawyers love em.

    The NFL players aren't abused. It's highly laughable to me, college graduates and intelligent people like Brady, Brees, Manning, etc can sit there with a straight face claiming they are being abused.

    If these players were abused in some fashion, where an argument could be made, then it would make sense.

    If you can't make an argument, you have nothing to stand on.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Dessalines. Show Dessalines's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    .I trained to be a teacher and never was. I am not in a union now.  I'm in corporate systems and I make very good money and I have great benefits.  In my life, I've been in unions twice, the laborers union in construction on Long Island New York in the late 60's and later in a service employees union working in the county government in Nassau county New York working as a welfare examiner. In the last thirty years I have experienced the wonders corporate life. There isn't much that I have not experienced or seen in sixty two years. My experience of those unions was that they did little for the workers they represented, especially the laborers union, which almost a criminal organization but one that functioned in the interests of the company owners. However, the machinists, electricians, masons and wire lathers had pretty good union representation,so it depended on your skills. The service union wasn't good on pay, which was controlled via civil service laws but was good on obtaining decent benefits and job security. I will have more to say about the corporate style a bit further on.




    My father came to country in 1929 from Scotland, trying to escape the great depression.  He was a machinist by trade but also had skills as a servant/butler.  As he had friends already here in private service, he went that way to make a living at first, as, lets face it, there were no machinist jobs to be had until the beginning of World War Two.  He had socialist leanings and he always told me that the union was always for the common man.  When I was a kid in the 50's and 60's, (very prosperous times for most Americans), 35% of all workers were unionized and the middle class was vast and untouchable. It was a different world, probably a world that many posters here know nothing about.  Today, perhaps only 7% of all workers are unionized and the middle class is shrinking and is under attack from the wealthiest and from the republican party. It is also not well served by the democratic party.  Its working. The assault on the middle class is working.



     

    Think about it, republicans want to means test for Social Security eligibility, which would turn it into welfare, which it is not. Many will say you can't retire on that, so who cares. You were never supposed to retire on Social Security it was to be an income floor that would allow at least something to go with whatever else you could save. Since its inception, republicans and their wealthy constituents have been trying to kill it off and means testing will finally do the trick. The system is actuarially sound and contributes not one cent to the deficit and in fact the trust fund has been raided for deacdes to mask the true size of yearly deficits. It's true. However, they say it needs reforms such as turning it into a national 401K for younger workers, or means testing for eligibility or rasing the retirement age to seventy. Those things are not necessary. All the attacks on Social Security are only one example of the assault on the middle class.



     

    The less that is spent to make people's lives better goes to those who are wealthier.  I know this because I benefit from their policies.  Oh yes I do.  Is it right?  Are we not one people who as citizens contribute and should receive something for that contribution other than the right to send our children to war? Have you noticed that we are only really united when we are at war? When they come home now, what is there for the veteran? Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are homeless now and they become homeless much faster than their Vietnam era compatriots. Is it right? When G.I. Joe came home from World War Two, he got an education from Uncle Sam. The G.I. Bill. Not today, no way.



     

    Should we not have good schools without reference to one's ability to pay a higher property tax in order to obtain that or even to pay for private schools? For everything else but the schools, the dispensation of tax monies comes from a general fund but schools are funded by property taxes, which means you get the education that YOU the individual can afford to buy, dependent upon where you can afford to live. Same with health care and much else these days, you are on your own. If you are in a union you probably have decent health care, maybe. If you work in the middle to upper reaches of a corporation, you will have GOOD health care and a shot at good wages. However, corporations say they are running a meritocracy when in fact they are running a good ole boys network. It's not what you know but who. If your young and you don't think so, wait till you get to be my age. There are bad unions and good unions and there are bad and good corporations. Does this not sound like human nature? It is indeed.




    I grow weary of all of this sturm und drang that has become our national conversation. Our political system has failed us. Huge amounts of money being used to influence people's views is a major culprit. I despair for my country and it's future, not because of deficits or taxes or any of the other issues du jour but because we have stopped caring about each other and we have stopped thinking critically. We have reached the point where many no longer trust science. It has become every person for themselves and the discussion on this forum abut the owners and the players underline that in spades. A plague on both their houses. Their struggle with each other should have no meaning to most of us posting, except that we cannot SEE/VIEW what we want to. Our behavior is, I am afraid, just part of the same uncaring syndrome. I'm on this side and your on that side. Should we not be on the same side because of the nation we are part of? If you see the homeless guy on the street, ask yourself sometime just how far you are from that if you lose your job or your business or whatever it is that pays the bills and puts food on the table? I actually know how far most people are from being on the street from my time as a welfare examiner and even back then, most people were about a month from the poverty line. It is probably much less today. Good luck to all and sorry this turned out so long

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    Yup. 

    Ban lobbying and have term limits on Congress. 

    Funny how the people who write the laws don't have legit term limits and 90% of the time get re-elected, regardless.  Yet, even the president has term limits thanks to Teddy Roosevelt.

    That makes no sense.  Term limits for the president but not the folks who write legislation? 

    Not what the founding fathers wanted, I can say that.

    Sens and Reps should only be allowed to be re-elected ONCE, before stepping down, only to re-enter public service after a break of (4-6 years).

    I slightly disagree on saying "the Republicans have declared war on the middle class".

    I feel both parties have because they do the same thing, it just comes from a different source with a different name and face on it.

    You could argue Clinton signing NAFTA is what put this into overdrive, but then you have to wonder if it was just inevitable.

    Agreed the middle class has been dwindling the last 20 years, where it never existed pre World War II.

    Not a good thing.  Regression is not good.

    At some point corporations will need re-invest here.  I just hope it comes sooner rather than later.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Evil2010. Show Evil2010's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters:
    unions are one of the reasons alot of our jobs got shipped overseas, where cheap labor and non union people can be taken advantage of. unions could have a benefit, but generally they get corrupted by the leaders who want more then they deserve, and stop representing the people that elected them. I generally side with the owners on pro sports debates, as I feel the players generally dont have a firm grasp on reality when it comes to negotiations.
    Posted by 00chief00


    What a crock! Do you have any proof that unions are the cause of jobs going overseas? Nope because there's never any proof behind right wing BS. Jobs get shipped overseas because the Chinese get paid a couple of bucks a day. You whining pinheads apparently expect people to work for wages that can't even feed their families just so you can pay less for products.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    The only thing I would say is the cost to negotiate with unions heads and lawyers certainly doesn't help the argument for unions.

    It's (outsourcing) is not the sole reason, in my opinion, no.

    Jobs go overseas because it's a slam dunk way to cut costs. Pretty simple.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters:
    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters : What a crock! Do you have any proof that unions are the cause of jobs going overseas? Nope because there's never any proof behind right wing BS. Jobs get shipped overseas because the Chinese get paid a couple of bucks a day. You whining pinheads apparently expect people to work for wages that can't even feed their families just so you can pay less for products.
    Posted by Evil2010


    No sh#t...I saw this beaut of a post too (the one you're replying towards)...      
         Less Union influence, power, and numbers when looked at in simple terms of PER Person, every single year verses the last maybe 40-60 years, UN-believably greater ionization of wealth, AND power into a dwindling percentage of the populace (saw recently the figure that in 1950, your average income for a CEO in Britain was 10X, the average pay for the workers in his company... By 2000?  100X more he was being paid.  In America? 1950 it was a 40-1 ratio salary... By 2000?  400-1), add this with a STILL greatly unchecked influences of corrupt lobbyists for monopolies & oligarchies having their way in Washington, rising cost of living expenses wherein an average person born in MY generation does not and IS not per average living as easily, and making the same than those within my parents, the baby-boomers gen, WHOM in turn, are not living as well as THEIR parents, the "Greatest Gen" parent's generation was, add to this the TOTAL fraud Wall Street recently played with their nice lil' junk bond housing scam (and hey rich guys: We'll keep your wealthy tax breaks, just give us universal healthcare in some manner, alright?  No?  Good Deal...thanx), And so I just go BALLISTIC when I hear the unfortunate circumstances that MADE CEOs ship jobs oversees, simply because "Profits were down" (MEANING: "We still HAD profits lol...just not as good profits as some past years...and that's what we're looking for, Those BETTER profits")...

    You NON-Union guys wanna know why I'm outspoken for a bunch of Millionaire Sport's Players in conjunction with one another...?  It ain't them, It's You.  And you ALSO want to know the greatest difference between Union vs NON-Union Posters...?  90% of the Pro-Union posters were able to initially decipher that BOTH The Owners and The Players are at fault, while the NON-Union Posters KNOW the problem lies with the players union itself (a single voiced poster like PatsEng, being the soul exception in your camp). 

    For me...He!!, monetarily I'm alright.  I'm doing o.k..  I'm a College Grad working at a white collar big Company (for less than my HS educated father worked for at my age, in a warehouse...And both for considerably less than what my HS educated grandfather made, as he was able to afford & support his wife, 3 children, and acquire a 2nd house in order to rent for even added income).  I'm ceratinly NOT against the idealist democracritic principles set forth by our nation's forefathers...But I AM anti-capitalism...Unchecked in ANY way at all, Capitalism- (not sure there were coast-coast Walmarts in Washington's time, employing clerks, shippers, growers, manufacturers, etc...until infinity. Local & regional power dons...but enormous National power-brokers cornering markets?). 

    I digress (as usual).  Even though I'm still yearning and trully needing a greater spiritual fulfullment than that which I know a great many, many, many people are able to gleefully fulfill in the name of acquiring shiny & expensive tangible assets and compiling numbers in a bank book...I am still, plenty immersed in this materialistic world to want at least, a decent share of life's finer things (brand new top-of-the-line cars I "saw" my father able to afford with a job right out of High School...A 3 bedroom house I "saw" my grandfather easily afford when he was my age).  It's all relative I suppose, generation to generation...  
        

    STILL, "Why," you ask, "Am I so Pro-NFL-Players Union?"  Because to me at least, it represents a microcosm (a warped game for millionaires's one).  Think my views and stance here, akin to the famous Indian Chief Sitting Bull...  Sitting Bull, towards the end of his life, once went to Washington D.C. with a large collection of other Native American Chiefs, in order to discuss U.S. Government treatises for The Lakota Indians.  When told by the US Government that in order to garner a larger land reservation elsewhere, and to have a greater voice of power now, Sitting Bull would initially have to show certain good faith gestures...He'd be asked to cede some of his land to The Government initially...  Here's how Sitting Bull replied to the politicians:  "This," he said (grabbing a handful of dirt and letting it flow out his fingers).  "I won't give you this much land to take away any longer...".  THIS is the reason of my militancy.    
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters:
    I digress (as usual).  Posted by LazarusintheSanatorium


    lol!!

    As usual? 

    Digress from your posts, err, I mean riddles you put on here?

    So, what you are really saying with far less words than that is, you are anti-Capitalist yet work for a white collar company.

    Hmm. Not sure what that even means.

    What industry do you work in?

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ssmilloy36. Show ssmilloy36's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    unoions are what killed the american auto industry.  something upwards of $1600 is added to each car to pay for union members healthcare alone.  that's why japp cars can sell for cheaper. ie overseas jobs created. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    Theirs are not necessarily cheaper.   Japanese cars usually are slightly more expensive.

    That's why you see immmigrants driving a Chevy truck over say, a Toyota Tacoma.

    The resale is lower, so they buy an American car, little knowing the transmission will blow at any minute.

    In fact, their usually about 2-3K off in price as compared to American cars, but you get far better value with the car and more quality, especially with options consumers actually want.

    Gee, what a novel idea.

    Their (Japanese mfgers) costs are lower, hence an easier way to manage and generate a consistent profit, allowing the companies to develop new technoglogy through R and D, etc. 

    I am also convinced the Big 3 have been in bed with Big Oil for a long time now, pushing SUV and trucks (note how many commercials you see of these cars), while the Japanese are not.

    Japanese Auto companies actually invest and employ people here, not shipping jobs off to S. America, Mexico, India or China/Vietnam.

    Successful model.

    It's just a fact.

    The CEO at Chrysler. GM or Ford, apparently has no issue seeing cars assembled in some village in China, where his "employees" live in squalor and collect their 50 cents per day.

    Nice arrangement.

    I'd rather support the American worker here, pay a tad more up front for what I want with a "foreign car", and not support big business/big oil, especially when they don't even invest here.

    Why anyone buys an American car and feeds the system, I have no idea. It makes me sick and it also pains me to say that, too.

    I'd love nothing more than to see GM, Ford, Chrysler, etc, basically do exactly what the Japanese do.

    Obama had a perfect opportunity to slap the Big 3 and he didn't. He could have dissolved the unions and forced them to sell the gov't and taxpayer on a new model before the bailout was handed out.

    He didn't.

    That was a mistake.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from anonymis. Show anonymis's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    I don't care for either of them.

    It's my opinion that both athletes and team owners make too much money; and apart from having entertainment value, serve no purpose in improving societal ills.

    I say, have players lower their salary and mandate that ticket prices revert back to face values from the 1960's......lol. Seriously, I don't have any desire to spend $500+ for 1 game for a family of 4. I can think of plenty of things to do with that cash.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    I agree  The people who go to these games are:

    1. Very wealthy and live in a fantasy world.
    2. Are spending over their means (most of the loyal fans probably fall into this category)
    3. Are coroporate heads with free tickets.

    The corporate boxes and new stadiums changed the landscape. It had to happen, but what stinks is the rate at which all these prices increased.

    Then, you add in the Stubhub/Ticketmaster rackets with scalping and the whole industry is a racket.

    All of entertainment is like this.

    I just rejected front row seats to a concert, because I couldn't get myself to pull the trigger on the price of what it costs, just on principle alone.

    Get over yourself.

    You're a multio millionaire and you want to charge me $250 for MAYBE 120 minutes of music?

    haha

    How do you live with yourself? I can afford, it I just don't want to give in.

    It doesn't matter either, because they still break even.  Donny Dipsh*t and his corporate buddies know 3 songs, act obnoxious and buy 10 $9 beers so all is well anyway.

    I can go see a new artist or a great band that isn't on the radio for $20 for like 3 hours and be as blown away.

    I do the same with sports now.  Just go to minor league baseball games for $7 and see good baseball.

    Or hockey.

    Just move down if you can after the 1st period of a hockey game.  $100 for a hockey game? Really?

    Disturbing.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from PatsEng. Show PatsEng's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters:
    I think its all pointless since all the unions will be zombieized once the zombie pandemic starts...lol what no room for zombie talk on this political thread on a football forum? LOL
    Posted by MVPkilla4life


    Sorry MVP but only 4 things will survive the zombie apocalypse: Lawyers, Politicians, Union heads, and Cockroaches
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from 123meg. Show 123meg's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    We already have term limits, they're called elections. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from BBReigns. Show BBReigns's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    Those elections are bought and sold, so no, we don't have elections.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from LazarusintheSanatorium. Show LazarusintheSanatorium's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters:
    like how unions were exempt from this nignog Obamacare.  Big controlling vote population threatens to not vote his way if they have to have it.  Fair?
    Posted by ssmilloy36


    Huh- with what, now?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ATJ. Show ATJ's posts

    Re: Union vs Non-Union posters

    In Response to Re: Union vs Non-Union posters:
    like how unions were exempt from this nignog Obamacare.  Big controlling vote population threatens to not vote his way if they have to have it.  Fair?
    Posted by ssmilloy36


    Reported to BDC.  No room for this nonsense here. And please delete this post as well since I quoted that garbage.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share