Reagan's actions speak loud - again! (Page 2): The ability to choose a union shop for one. I have lost trust in unions, having seen too much cronyism with the companies they should be...

willy7

Dave wrote:

I don't believe that either greed or power lust ar... (show quote)

The ability to choose a union shop for one. I have lost trust in unions, having seen too much cronyism with the companies they should be watching for dangerous practices, usually unsafe work conditions. While that is the fault of union members not watching their officers' conduct it is also a symptom of the current lack of morals nationally. The right to works sans union membership was always there, provided the worker didn't mind working for less than his union counterpart. Thanks for your insight in this matter.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

willy7 wrote:

The ability to choose a union shop for one. I have... (show quote)

Where is there any regulation that restricts one to work in a union shop? I've never heard of one. There are cases where one who might choose to work without joining a union are precluded from doing so, the inverse however is not true anywhere that I've ever heard of.

As to safety, today's laws regarding both worker's comp and civil lawsuits for gross negligence would seem to be far stronger monitoring of safety than what most unions could offer.

willy7

Dave wrote:

Where is there any regulation that restricts one to work in a union shop? I've never heard of one. There are cases where one who might choose to work without joining a union are precluded from doing so, the inverse however is not true anywhere that I've ever heard of.

As to safety, today's laws regarding both worker's comp and civil lawsuits for gross negligence would seem to be far stronger monitoring of safety than what most unions could offer.

Ah, you do see the points. Do you honestly believe those laws would exist without the sacrifices union members made? Ever hear of 'red necks'? Scabs? Pinkerton muscle against unions, hired by company moguls? All this from someone who's seen the decline of union moral character.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

willy7 wrote:

Ah, you do see the points. Do you honestly believe those laws would exist without the sacrifices union members made? Ever hear of 'red necks'? Scabs? Pinkerton muscle against unions, hired by company moguls? All this from someone who's seen the decline of union moral character.

Yes, I honestly believe those laws would exist without union sacrifice - many, if not all, are evolutionary from the beginning of the industrial revolution.

As to the muscle against unions, certainly you don't think that was a one way street. John L Lewis was hardly a pacifist, and Beck, then Hoffa, showed what real organized violence looked like. The extremism on both sides was the natural and necessary outgrowth in the development of modern economies, and those tactics have clearly become obsolete as part of normal civilizing progress.

rumitoid

willy7 wrote:

http://www.capitolhilldaily.com/2013/09/reagan-labor-leader/#more

Ronnie 'raygun' was a great leader, matching action to his beliefs.

President Reagan, without asking or advising Congress, sent arms to Iran--IRAN--right after the hostage situation and while we had sided with Iraq in the war between those two nations. This was illegal and impeachable, going against the "Arms Export Control Act" and our pact with Iraq. Ed Meese said the president should have and did have the right to act in such a unilateral fashion by the "Unitary Executory Theory," which went directly against the basic principles of our government in theory, practice, and law. Lol, and then there was Grenada.
Cheney used this as precedent and argued that Bush could just invade Iraq without congressional approval; thank God that at least in this instance, though it turned out not to matter, Bush was not compliant for a change.

rumitoid

ABBAsFernando wrote:

i Reagan was a real American citizen who defended... (show quote)

President Reagan, without asking or advising Congress, sent arms to Iran--IRAN--right after the hostage situation and while we had sided with Iraq in the war between those two nations. This was illegal and impeachable, going against the "Arms Export Control Act" and our pact with Iraq. Ed Meese said the president should have and did have the right to act in such a unilateral fashion by the "Unitary Executory Theory," which went directly against the basic principles of our government in theory, practice, and law. Lol, and then there was Grenada.
Cheney used this as precedent and argued that Bush could just invade Iraq without congressional approval, as Reagan did; thank God that at least in this instance, though it turned out not to matter, Bush was not compliant for a change.

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

rumitoid wrote:

President Reagan, without asking or advising Congr... (show quote)

Sending arms to Iran in exchange for releasing the hostages was NEVER PROVEN! It was just a left-wing allegation that they could not prove.

roy

Dave wrote:

Where is there any regulation that restricts one to work in a union shop? I've never heard of one. There are cases where one who might choose to work without joining a union are precluded from doing so, the inverse however is not true anywhere that I've ever heard of.

As to safety, today's laws regarding both worker's comp and civil lawsuits for gross negligence would seem to be far stronger monitoring of safety than what most unions could offer.

who are you kidding look what tennessee did on workers comp,the governor appoints the board the doctors and the judges and the outcome, but will probably be judged unconstutional before long,republicans did this for the companys,like they have done on every single issue since this has become a red state,every thing for the employer that gave you the big bucks,and screw the workers,thats the mindset of this bunch

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

OldSchool wrote:

Sending arms to Iran in exchange for releasing the hostages was NEVER PROVEN! It was just a left-wing allegation that they could not prove.

That's because the allegation was never alleged. The deal was that we would sell arms to Iran and use the money to arm the Contras fighting in Nicaragua.

Both parts of that deal were against the laws enacted in Congress.

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

working class stiff wrote:

That's because the allegation was never alleged. The deal was that we would sell arms to Iran and use the money to arm the Contras fighting in Nicaragua.

Both parts of that deal were against the laws enacted in Congress.

And, they were NEVER proven! No one went to jail because they couldn't prove it. They thought Oliver North would testify against the Reagan administration, and it backfired on them (the liberals). Lesson learned, never have some one testify for your side unless you know what they're going to say. So, the charges, allegations, or wh**ever you want to call them, never stuck.

rumitoid

OldSchool wrote:

Sending arms to Iran in exchange for releasing the hostages was NEVER PROVEN! It was just a left-wing allegation that they could not prove.

If you care to google, find a site where it does not say he did it or, better yet, disproves it. And what about Grenada?

rumitoid

OldSchool wrote:

And, they were NEVER proven! No one went to jail because they couldn't prove it. They thought Oliver North would testify against the Reagan administration, and it backfired on them (the liberals). Lesson learned, never have some one testify for your side unless you know what they're going to say. So, the charges, allegations, or wh**ever you want to call them, never stuck.

Never proven? Like many of the claims about Obama that so many insist are true nonetheless, even when debunked.
Honestly, do you think it never happened, it was just a liberal witch-hunt?

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

OldSchool wrote:

And, they were NEVER proven! No one went to jail because they couldn't prove it. They thought Oliver North would testify against the Reagan administration, and it backfired on them (the liberals). Lesson learned, never have some one testify for your side unless you know what they're going to say. So, the charges, allegations, or wh**ever you want to call them, never stuck.

Are you saying that the "Iran-Contra" affair never happened?

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

rumitoid wrote:

Never proven? Like many of the claims about Obama that so many insist are true nonetheless.
Honestly, do you think it never happened, it was just a liberal witch-hunt?

It was a liberal witch hunt. What! Don't like my answer? That's how you liberals reply to Obama's NON-PHONY scandals.

The investigations into Obama's scandals are far from over - we'll see if anything sticks.

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

working class stiff wrote:

Are you saying that the "Iran-Contra" affair never happened?

Yep. If you believe it happened, I challenge you to prove it, because the liberal Democrats couldn't prove it.