The Numbers Prove Voter Fraud (Page 7): Until a company has had enough, can't afford to keep being gouged and takes its operations offshore. Then its members find themselves with no...

Seth

DASHY wrote:

I guess we all agree. Unions represent the best interests of the workers. A disability pension for life and a year off with pay. Not bad!!!

Until a company has had enough, can't afford to keep being gouged and takes its operations offshore.

Then its members find themselves with no jobs at all.

Is that when sympathetic liberals whose politicians take major contributions from these unions all chip in half their own incomes to compensate the out of work union members?

I seem to recall reading someplace, I believe it was in a book called Do As I Say, Not As I Do, that Nancy Pelosi does not permit unionization in any of her own business interests.

Fancy that.

DASHY

Seth wrote:

Until a company has had enough, can't afford to ke... (show quote)

When a company closes down union workers will find a good or better paying job with another company. Profitable companies are always looking for good trained workers .

Seth

DASHY wrote:

When a company closes down union workers will find a good or better paying job with another company. Profitable companies are always looking for good trained workers .

Moreso with Trump in the White House than when Obama roosted there.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

Seth wrote:

Moreso with Trump in the White House than when Obama roosted there.

While the company I worked for from 1997 until 2013, was not union. We were paid well, large year end bonuses and a very good insurance package. In 2013, the company took advantage of changes in the laws and regulations to lay us all off and outsourced our jobs. Despite my work record and qualifications, there were no jobs paying close to what I was making. It took until 2016 before I could find a job that paid well and had good health benefits. Our compensation has increased by about 50% during this time. It all coincided with Trump becoming President.

Seth

Kickaha wrote:

While the company I worked for from 1997 until 201... (show quote)

While that was repeated all over America, the Democrats and the mainstream media of course totally ignored it or attributed it to Obama ("I did that"), who had himself said that his dismal economy was the new norm.

DASHY

Kickaha wrote:

While the company I worked for from 1997 until 201... (show quote)

Did you collect unemployment benefits when you were laid off?

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

DASHY wrote:

Did you collect unemployment benefits when you were laid off?

Unemployment is not a social program. It is an insurance program administered by the state and the employer pays into. I did and didn't collect unemployment. I didn't qualify for regular unemployment payments, but I did qualify for a special program. Because my job was outsourced and my age, I qualified for a half differential rate pay. In other words, I would receive half the difference between what I had been making and what my new job paid. It still meant to get any money I had to work, not just sit at home watching television. There were no food stamps or other government payments.

DASHY

Kickaha wrote:

Unemployment is not a social program. It is an ins... (show quote)

Social programs like unemployment compensation are there when we need them. There are different ways of funding and administering all social programs. Unemployment insurance is funded entirely by the employer. Social Security is funded by both the employer and the employee.

Kickaha Loc: Nebraska

DASHY wrote:

Social programs like unemployment compensation are there when we need them. There are different ways of funding and administering all social programs. Unemployment insurance is funded entirely by the employer. Social Security is funded by both the employer and the employee.

Those are not social programs, they are insurance programs administered by the government. The government, if they wanted, could turn these programs over to private industry. True social programs are those that the government controls to engineer a particular social outcome and is paid for out of general funds.

Seth

Kickaha wrote:

Those are not social programs, they are insurance programs administered by the government. The government, if they wanted, could turn these programs over to private industry. True social programs are those that the government controls to engineer a particular social outcome and is paid for out of general funds.

Not to mention that we pay into Social Security throughout our working lives with the agreement that we start getting it back when we retire.

It's not a taxpayer charity, and unless one lives to be about a zillion years old, it's doubtful one will ever get back what one paid in.

You're also missing out on all that accrued interest you'd receive if you had been given the option of putting the funds in an interest bearing retirement account, so Uncle Sam gets you coming and going.

DASHY

Kickaha wrote:

Those are not social programs, they are insurance programs administered by the government. The government, if they wanted, could turn these programs over to private industry. True social programs are those that the government controls to engineer a particular social outcome and is paid for out of general funds.

Programs administered by the government, like Unemployment Compensation and Social Security, are social programs. Both have the social outcome of helping people when they need it. Social programs have different funding methods. If these programs were turned over to private industry to fund and administer, an element of profit to the private company would be added to the cost. Private insurance companies sell these programs all the time. They are funded by sales to the customers. People who can't afford them get left out.