Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
stonecircle
2052 Followers
Janine Wallace
4729 Followers
Phil Perspective
9366 Followers
Siraj Ahmed
1034 Followers
Julie Tucker
2553 Followers
Columbine Phoenix
1283 Followers
meedFeb 26, 2011
Crush the unions unless it is a union I am a member of?
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
How do crap stories like this make it on Digg? Really? How non topical is this garbage....this wasn't fresh a week ago much less now. And from alternet.org? A pillar of the journalistic community. (laughs hysterically)Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
craigreedFeb 27, 2011
Didn't anyone explain to you how digg works when you signed up? Clearly this article is on digg because this person called "Stonecircle" submitted it.
16x9Feb 27, 2011
In your universe, on such an important issue, how is it that pointing out a CLEAR hypocrisy falls into the category of a "crap story?"
isa9191Feb 28, 2011
It disagrees with his world view. Therefore....
BluntzworthFeb 28, 2011
Exactly!
5urr3al5amFeb 28, 2011
you can thank the liberal group 'the dbags' for moving this story to the top of digg
5urr3al5amFeb 28, 2011
you can thank the liberal group 'the dbags' for moving this story to the top of digg
californicatorFeb 25, 2012
Thanks for letting me bury your comment twice.
bcarl314Feb 28, 2011
Finally, some union members who I agree are lazy, greedy, worthless slobs!
freedomjoeFeb 26, 2011
And AFTRA is rallying in WI today for the workers. Nice going, Fox.
roofviewFeb 26, 2011
They should start their own union and call it the Union of Douchebags.
paranor01Feb 27, 2011
There is... it's called the Republican party.
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
Lemme guess...junior high?
kyomagiFeb 27, 2011
"let me guess, junior high?"
There, I fixed it for you.
teabagger
paranor01Feb 27, 2011
Yeah, they are pretty easy to spot. They seem to be covered in 'tea' stains.
paranor01Feb 27, 2011
Yes, your reply is of someone that may be in junior high. Thankfully I'm beyond those selfishly childish times.
ferretmanFeb 27, 2011
@para - Ah, there's that "civility" again....hypocrite.
paranor01Feb 27, 2011
You seem to not understand what civility means, or you are using an alternate definition while using quotes, which would suggest it's your own definition rather than it's historically shown meaning.
adambomb5060Feb 27, 2011
Maybe they'll get kicked out and lose their jobs. Wishful thinking, I know.
ghrayfahxFeb 27, 2011
It's one of those situations just like the teachers. Whether or not you agree with the union, you HAVE to join to be allowed to do the work. Union membership should be optional, NEVER mandatory.
sabz5150Feb 27, 2011
My wife is a teacher and not part of any union. She's been that way for quite some time now... like her entire teaching career.
meesherFeb 27, 2011
And for those who choose not to join, should they be excluded from the guaranteed benefits and salaries that union contracts have secured for its members? Because I bet in most instances it is not legal to do so. And if they get to enjoy the benefits, is it unreasonable to expect them to help pay for the effort to obtain them?
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
You know, it's shocking to see how people regard solidarity. What could be more important? But instead it's characterized so nagatively. If you are a member of a union, you are making certain compromises in order to gain that solidarity. And for many people that solidarity is all that stands in the way of being completely exploited and at the mercy of the rich and powerful.
And with the unprecedented income gap in America, the highest on the planet, I don't know how anyone can argue that unions are not needed anymore. They are needed more than ever.
lpezzFeb 27, 2011
Working for a particular employer is never mandatory. If you don't want to join a union, don't work for a place that mandates it.
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
Yeah go work somewhere that pays you much less and doesn't give you any benefits and where you have no path of recourse for anything your employer does, except maybe extremely expensive legal means.
What on earth is wrong with people? Do you people know how important unions are? What they have done for working people? Many of you union opponents have unions to thank for many of the improved working conditions you are in.
It's amazing the loyalty of fox news viewers. Within a week you have become frothing-at-the-mouth furious about unions when you probably didn't even consider them 2 months ago. Don't you see what Fox is doing?
lpezzFeb 27, 2011
That was my point.
bosskeyFeb 28, 2011
Yeah, that's easy! Now everybody go find a different job...oh wait...where are the jobs???
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
In the 3 jobs that I enjoyed with union representation (2 of them government...postal workers and teacher) membership was not mandatory..and non-members still benefitted from collective bargaining. The contract goes out to everyone, union members and not.
actorboyFeb 27, 2011
You are correct.
zipzagFeb 27, 2011
True.
The article is another altnet breathless exaggeration.
The Fox News of the left.
delphium226Feb 27, 2011
Which part of it was exaggerated?
zipzagFeb 27, 2011
High paid performers don't benefit substantially from union membership. It's also likely that it would have been difficult or impossible to for them to work certain jobs/deals without joining the union earlier in their career.
That makes the article perhaps true but unimportant.
It's typical Fox News style one sided crap. People should try to be better than that. It doesn't take exaggeration to demonstrate that the conservative commentators mentioned are aholes.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaydub99Feb 28, 2011
Most high paid performers were not always. And probably benefitted because their union didn't allow them to sign away their rights to get their first gig.
actorboyFeb 27, 2011
"It's one of those situations just like the teachers. Whether or not you agree with the union, you HAVE to join to be allowed to do the work. "
Not necessarily so. Union membership is not mandatory in non-Union shops or in right-to-work states. The cable news networks are non-Union shops (I actually confirmed this with a Union board member just 3 days ago.)
There is no reason for Hannity, Limbaugh or O'Reilly to maintain their active union membership status. They could leave any time if they desired.
jarysmFeb 27, 2011
Hypocrites!
sabachFeb 27, 2011
I have no love for unions, every time I've belonged to a union (USW, UAW and AFL-CIO) they did nothing that ever directly benefited me. It was obvious that their primary role was to a) maximize their own profits and b) protect employees that were f**k-ups and couldn't keep their jobs without union intervention. Having said that, I stand on the side of the unions and and support their right to exist if the employees vote to have them.
sabz5150Feb 27, 2011
So they...
a) maximize their own profits and
b) protect employees that were f**k-ups
Damn, if this weren't a Union article, I could swear you were talking about Goldman Sachs, Bank of America or practically any corporation out there.
kasha34Feb 27, 2011
They're corporations, owned by stockholders. They're SUPPOSED to maximize their own profits.
sabz5150Feb 27, 2011
Then there's the whole "protecting f**kups" thing.
kasha34Feb 27, 2011
See, if you're not a stockholder then it's not your concern.
Just as, if the pizza parlor across the street has an incompetent waitress that's not your concern either, unless you're a partner in the pizza joint.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
sabz5150Feb 27, 2011
Ask the people who were stockholders in Enron if that's the case.
sabz5150Feb 27, 2011
Ask the people who received energy from or were employed by Enron if that's the case.
u2canfailFeb 28, 2011
Ask the State of California, what happened to all businesses in the State when ENRON invented the rolling blackouts for their investors profits? I would venture to say, more investors money and more companies profits suffered, than the gains made for ENRON.
There is a company that used to employ over 3000 workers. To maximize profit, management did not repair or replace any equipment for several years. A huge cost savings. A huge boost to profit, for stockholders. However, the company is now out of business. They could not find money to replace everything, at once. No jobs, stock now worthless.
Maximizing profit, can end a business. ENRON just another example. I do hope you kasha dear, invest in companies that "MAXIMIZE".
kasha34Feb 28, 2011
sabz
Right. The STOCKHOLDERS for Enron had a valid complaint. Though not so much that officials were incompetent. They were dishonest and were encouraged to be that way.
As to the state of California, again, the problem wasn't Enron keeping deadwood employees. The problem was they were dishonest.
sabz5150Feb 28, 2011
Dishonest employees ARE deadwood. Dishonest employees ARE f**k-ups.
meesherFeb 27, 2011
You forgot:
c) negotiate competitive wages and benefits for all members
Or was that not the case with your job?
And BTW, unions defend all of their members, not just the bad ones. Often they are required to according to labor laws in their states.
brewbeauFeb 27, 2011
Not to mention that unions help to set wages for non union work as well. Private firms are forced to raise their wages to a comparable level or risk not having a competent workforce.
u2canfailFeb 28, 2011
I think that is the real point of busting Unions. All wages will fall. It is simply a matter of we now have MORE WORKERS than JOBS. End Unions, you can lower wages across the board. We can further segregate the haves from the have nots.
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
Did you actually go to any of your union meetings and gatherings? It sounds like you didn't really take much of an interest in the week to week affairs of the union......I am a member of a bricklayers/masons union and until I started attending the meetings I wasn't aware of how much they actually do for me and my union brothers.
laurahoustonFeb 27, 2011
Fox is now in a paradox....Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh will now have to quit their unions?, so they can be fired from Fox.
duncan202Feb 27, 2011
Generally, because of the power of the unions, you can't work in that particular field unless you're are a member. I've worked many jobs in my life where I was forced to pay into a union whether I wanted to or not.
taiyoryuFeb 27, 2011
but you were never forced to work a specific job. every job has stipulations that come with the job---for example, on-call 24/7, travel 100% of the time, you must relocate but relocation expenses aren't covered, etc.
duncan202Feb 27, 2011
True. However, for instance, if you want to be an actor you pretty much have to join an union. So you can either not pursue the career what you want to, or begrudgingly join.. If you are forced to join, you are under no obligation to morally support it. So the fact that above personalities are members is irrelevant.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
actorboyFeb 27, 2011
"However, for instance, if you want to be an actor you pretty much have to join an union."
False. It depends on what state you are working in. Many right-to-work states are offer tax breaks to lure productions in and many of the local actors who work on those films are non-union. I worked as "SAG eligible" for years, meaning I was offered union membership and free to join at any time. No one ever pressured me to join, but I still received at full union pay and benefits. It was because of the latter that I finally joined. I wanted to support the people who had fought for and protected me for so long.
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
And you didn't benefit from the higher wages or health packages you were given as a result of paying into that union?
I don't know how people can think this way. I only recently became a member of a union of bricklayers and masons. At first, I hated seeing all these dues being deducted from my pay. But then you start talking to other non-union masons and you start to compare situations. My safety equipment was always top notch and new, our tools and loaders were better and newer.
But the real advantages aren't always apparent to the average worker BECAUSE they are sheltered from it by the unions.
duncan202Feb 27, 2011
I didn't no. I was 17 years old working at grocery stores, shipping departments etc, making fairly low wages (which I was fine with or I wouldn't have taken the jobs.) At jobs I had no intention of being at for more than a couple years I was forced to pay union dues for others. Union membership should be voluntary. If they can't persuade enough people to join, then they shouldn't exist.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
duncan202Feb 27, 2011
I didn't no. I was 17 years old working at grocery stores, shipping departments etc, making fairly low wages (which I was fine with or I wouldn't have taken the jobs.) At jobs I had no intention of being at for more than a couple years I was forced to pay union dues for others. Union membership should be voluntary. If they can't persuade enough people to join, then they shouldn't exist.
davidnivenFeb 27, 2011
Nope. They are not bashing all unions, just the ones that are corrupt, force membership, or are screwing with a State's economy.
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
You really think they'll stop with the public unions? You really think this is about the budget? The teachers have agreed, for weeks now, to the pay cuts, the increased amount paid into their pensions. The heart of this matter is the collective bargaining rights. Stripping those rights away isn't going to make a dent in the budget, so why is it on the table?
I know you are republican so you probably don't care, or just don't believe it's true, but this union busting is to derail the democratic party's ability to raise campaign money. Dismantling this union will be the powder keg which puts all unions on the chopping block. There is much more at stake here than just saving money.
So even though you are probably relishing the attack on unions and the thinly veiled reason behind it, but do you honestly condone such bullying and coercion from elected officials? Is this really how you think things should work in America? As you can see, it isn't just the "ones that are corrupt" that are rallying at Wisconsin. Unions from all over the country are coming out and why? Because they know they might (will) be next.
Tell you what, we'll see if either of the Koch brothers or their business get control of those utilities contracts once Walker privitizes them. If that doesn't happen then maybe you're right, maybe this really is just about the budget.
davidnivenFeb 27, 2011
"You really think they'll stop with the public unions?"
Is your argument that the Alternet article was accurate not because of any arguments that it put forth but because of what the so-called rightwing pundits MIGHT do next?
I don't know if they'll stop. How could I?
"You really think this is about the budget?"
Yes, and about other things too.
"The heart of this matter is the collective bargaining rights."
As it should be. This is not just about balancing a budget now, but also about making sure that the government can balance a budget next year without being hamstrung by union contracts which legally mandate a certain financial outlay.
"I know you are republican so you probably don't care..."
I am an independent who has actually voted for Democrats before.
"So even though you are probably relishing the attack on unions and the thinly veiled reason behind it, but do you honestly condone such bullying and coercion from elected officials?"
Yes. What the elected officials are doing is small compared to the way unions have bullied governments into providing inflated salaries, enormous benefits packages, etc. Now, the union is getting a taste of its own medicine. Too bad.
"Is this really how you think things should work in America?"
Balance and compromise with no one side always getting its way? Yes.
This is not just about a budget. It's about the ability of the government to balance a budget without itself being bullied one way or the other. Actually, I think that the government should always feel bullied by individual taxpayers. Business interests, unions, and lobbyists should have very little influence. But, each taxpayer should bully the heck out the government. THAT is democracy. THAT is how freedom is ensured. When the government fears the people, not unions or big business, then it's a good thing.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jaydub99Feb 28, 2011
"without being hamstrung by" ... 8-9 figure golden parachutes... "which legally mandate a certain financial outlay."
There, fixed it for you.
mindtappedFeb 27, 2011
I am no longer shocked by any hypocrisy in politics or media. The type of people that become involved in either wallow in hypocrisy like a sow in their own filth. I always assume that they are lying and stupid and I'm right 99% of the time. Pessimism? They created it.
anachronusFeb 27, 2011
I don't think that was any big secret. It was mandatory for employment. It is one point where progressives and conservatives agree. They both want to use the force of law to make people do what they think is right. Be it join a union or heterosexual marriage only.
Or does alternet believe that Unions > First Amendment?
bookantFeb 27, 2011
This seems to be the talking point dujour, since I just responded to the same claim right above you. Where are getting this idea that TV and radio stars are "required" to join a union? Are you suggesting that FOX is a union shop (and thereby Rupert is the hypocrit, not the individual on air talent)? Feel free to cite your source for this claim.
actorboyFeb 27, 2011
"I don't think that was any big secret. It was mandatory for employment."
The news networks are non-union shops, so union membership is not mandatory. Rush Limbaugh broadcasts from the right-to-work state of Florida (West Palm Beach), so union membership is not mandatory.
mikemcc67Feb 27, 2011
So even other union members see the Wisconsin thing as a joke. Why 15% of us deserve to live better than the other 85% (non union) is beyond me.
Closed AccountFeb 27, 2011
Unions are coming out in protest across the country. Those on Fox news are attacking unions because that's what the right wing perspective is on this matter. You think these guys have any real say in what and how they report on a subject? They wouldn't last long if they didn't tow the right wing perspective, that's what fox news is.
It isn't a matter of whether they "deserve" it or not. They have a union, so their workers actually have a say in what happens to them. Maybe those other 85% should unionize. I always detect this jealous resentment from non-union workers and it isn't because they disagree with the idea of a union, it's because they wish they were in one.
Do you honestly think there is no place for unions anymore? Do you realize the income gap between the richest and the poorest is the highest in the world in the US? Did you know that the gap between the earnings of the CEOs and managers of many businesses is several hundred times more than their workers? In these conditions it seems to me that unions are more important than ever.
You seem to frame your opposition in terms of unfairness and not so much as a budgetary matter. But you make an important point. How can it be justified that these unions are such a leech on the tax payer when such a small minority of workers are unioned?
mikemcc67Feb 27, 2011
I will use a familiar statistic from the left when they say how abhorrent it is that only 10 % of the people in this country have 90% of the wealth. Try this....Only 15% of the workers in this country (union) receive 87% of benefit expenditures made for all workers. Name 5 industries or areas of the economy that are primarily unionized that aren't in dire straights right now. Hell the only unionized grocery chain (A&P parent company) in the us is the only one that did not survive. The auto manufacturers that are unionized are taking bailouts all the others (using US employees I might add) that are non unionized are flourishing. Volkswagen as one example. Union kills jobs in the long run. There is no one that can give me 5 examples of industries that unionized and then flourished over the last 50 years. It is the kiss of death.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikemcc67Feb 27, 2011
one last point.....you are correct about PRIVATE unions being there to protect people from greedy big business. In Wisconsin, however, WE are the people they claim to need protection from. We are suffering, and they are demanding more money for their own pockets than we have in our own. We are the employer here. How much money do YOU have? Are you the big greedy white man they need protecting from? Do you have millions that should be going to them? Public (tax payer fed) unions should be completely outlawed. There is no moral imperative to treat them like they are a better class of citizen than us. If we don't have it...they can do without it as well. Bottom line...the money isn't available regardless of who is right in this arguement. They better wake up and smell the reality. The taxpayers (their employers) are broke. We have nothing left to give.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mbraynardFeb 28, 2011
The public sector unions have bankrupted CA. Need I say more?
Besides, you think these protest are going to change the election results from November?
Because really, that's what these union **** are protesting: election results. They want to overturn them by show of force.
And that's not how things work in America.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mbraynardFeb 28, 2011
The public sector unions have bankrupted CA. Need I say more?
Besides, you think these protest are going to change the election results from November?
Because really, that's what these union **** are protesting: election results. They want to overturn them by show of force.
And that's not how things work in America.
enantiodromiaFeb 28, 2011
what do you mean by "live better"?
killermothFeb 27, 2011
This news made me smile this morning.
cyberdactylFeb 27, 2011
Just another meaningless article.
If the group mentioned in the article were NOT AFL-CIO members, they would be lambasted as far right nuts. Since they are, they are hypocritical far right nuts that are unions members themselves.
*sigh*
I guess it doesn't occur to the writers of these blogs and news commentary sites that those in favor of toning down the abilities of the public unions is because WE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY THEM THEIR HIGH WAGES AND THEIR EXORBITANT BENEFITS ANYMORE!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
ferretmanFeb 27, 2011
No surprise there....they had to join closed shops in order to do their jobs. Anybody who listens to them would have known this particular factoid ages ago.
This is the downside of a closed shop union--it forces folks to join even when they don't want to.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
actorboyFeb 27, 2011
The news networks are non-union. Rush broadcasts from Florida, which is a right-to-work state. They have no reason to be active union members today.
enantiodromiaFeb 28, 2011
they "had to" do nothing, as they have more money than they could ever use in a thousand years, and could very easily move to _any state they want_ and broadcast from there.
that's how radio and tv work. i assumed a scientist would know that.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaFeb 28, 2011
I like how I have exactly three buries for all my comments in the last day.
I wonder how that happened...
skywiseFeb 27, 2011
Buried as inaccurate. The article ITSELF says AFTRA hasn't released the names of the members and ONLY O'Reilly had admitted to being part of the union.
An earlier version of this article said that Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin were ALSO members of the union which they denied and were since quietly removed from the previous version of the article.
http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/25/stupid-lie-of-the-week-fox-news-people-are-hypocritical-aftra-members/Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
floridahoosierFeb 27, 2011
That they all belong to unions is a well known fact, they have all said so in the last week, again. They aren't against unions, just the way they are operating today.
kasha34Feb 27, 2011
The problems we're having are with unions of govt employees. Not private workers.
Way to go lefties, for trying to cover up that crucial distinction.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikelistFeb 28, 2011
governmental employees are just as subject to the same kinds of problems that fostered american unions, as private sectors are, and let's not forget that the government workers are owner/operators in a loose sense, seeing as how their wages are subject to taxes, just like yours. you struck out on your own, they united to strike a deal for all of their members. if you aren't doing better than their contract terms, why not? if you are, sorta proves my point (on the internet, disinterested parties can't really tell that you don't look just like steve buscemi) so you may or may not be typical of anything relevent.
jsffiveFeb 27, 2011
I'm not one to defend those dips**ts, but if they work in states that don't have right-to-work laws, then they may have NO CHOICE about having to join the union.
And if that's the case, then Alternet may have just inadvertently pointed out the unfairness of states that have no right to work laws!
Way to go, lib'tards!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
actorboyFeb 27, 2011
Firsthand from a union board member: The news networks are non-union shops. That non-union status is why Malkin is quoted in the article as believing none of these people are union; because she has never been asked or told to join.
jsffiveFeb 27, 2011
I'm not one to defend those dips**ts, but if they work in states that don't have right-to-work laws, then they may have NO CHOICE about having to join the union.
And if that's the case, then Alternet may have just inadvertently pointed out the unfairness of states that have no right to work laws!
Way to go, lib'tards!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikelistFeb 28, 2011
freeloader. you should get for free, what others worked to get? the management (public or private)is free to refuse terms, that's why they call it negotiations, and why sometimes there are strikes, and sometimes there are lockouts. most unions don't have the kinds of wages people tend to think of, not every union or local has the leverage to gouge their employer, it's less common than you might think. i worked with some window cleaners in indiana about 35 years ago, that actually got a decrease in wages after going teamsters, but the bennies and terms made it worthwhile.
enantiodromiaFeb 28, 2011
so your theory is that people who make tens of millions of dollars (or more actually) each year, are somehow UNABLE to move to a state whose laws are more agreeable?Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
jefftsFeb 27, 2011
Big difference between Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly and what is going on in WI. The former are employees for private companies in the private sector whose pay comes from revenue earned from said companies. The latter are public employees in the public sector whose pay comes from the taxpayers. Comparing the 2 is like comparing apples and oranges.
rezzedoutFeb 27, 2011
But these particular pundits get to say what's right/wrong, moral/not-worth-the-money, patriotic/Islamic, pork-barrel/Big Government, etc...we shouldn't rail against them when they say two different things to two very different groups, they are just bi-sexual in what they find attractive and stimulating!
mcarrelFeb 27, 2011
But, in fairness, aren't they required to be hypocrites in order to be on FOX news? I'm just saying...
duncan202Feb 27, 2011
If unions are so great why do they have to force people to join them? Because if membership was voluntary they'd disappear rather quickly wouldn't they,Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
mikelistFeb 28, 2011
because they did some of the heavy lifting for you before you even interviewed, thanks (or no thanks, for you) to the union contract negotiators. do you really think that you should get those negotiated wages and terms of employment, and not be involved with those who did? if you disagree with union politics, there generally are reduced dues available to accommodate you, and you don't have to publicly support the union. you are a straw man.
wonder if rush and glenn are on the reduced dues program
procrastin8orFeb 28, 2011
I've been in a teacher union for several years now and you are not required to join the union. Actually you get the same salary and benefits if you're in the union or not, but if you choose not to join they will not aid you in any way (consulting, legal action in extreme circumstances, etc) if you have a work related problem.
For teachers it is harder to judge how well they are performing as everything about it is not cookie cutter simple. So the union is helpful to make sure if you are getting fired it is truly because you suck and not because the boss just doesn't like you.
aserer511Feb 28, 2011
of course they are. because they can put america's best interests ahead of their own. There are NO shortage of union members who are only in a union to stay in that job sector
mbraynardFeb 28, 2011
They are members because they are required to be to be able to broadcast.
If they weren't in the union, the union would organize the other workers on the air to no-show and shut the programs down.
Rush had repeatedly said he'd love to quit.
And look at it this way: if they were members of the union and supportive of the WEAC, wouldn't that be more troublesome?
procrastin8orFeb 28, 2011
More evidence that Fox News personalities get their barking orders from the higher ups. Seriously, unions are just a negotiating tool, not some squad of gangsters robbing the organizations/businesses blind. If the business/organization doesn't want to or can't afford the pay they offer their employees they wouldn't do enter into a contract for it. Simple as that.
The catch is that companies want to maximize profits and that has a harder time when you can't pull a fast one on employees.
enantiodromiaFeb 28, 2011
Honestly I doubt most of the Herp Derp Gang even pay taxes in the first place. I'm not really sure what their problem is. Maybe they are jealous of the people who actually have jobs.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
enantiodromiaFeb 28, 2011
That's ok guys. While you sit at home watching NASCAR waiting for your factory jobs to never come back, I will make more than enough to cover the taxes which go straight to you anyway.
u2canfailFeb 28, 2011
Card carry Limbaugh? yes
Card carry Hannity? yes
Card carry Reagan? yes, and President of his UNION.
Union membership has benefits.
tomasiiFeb 28, 2011
Clearly the majority of liberal diggers on this topic have no idea the difference between a public and private union. So, stop smoking dope and educate yourselves on the difference.
vike50brianFeb 28, 2011
Anyone who listens to are watches any of these guys knows they are union members because they admit being so daily. They aren't union-bashing as the title would lead you to believe. The only people this is news to are those who disagree with their politics and choose not to listen to them. "Confirmed", like it was a secret! Give me a break!
stinkypete312Feb 28, 2011
well no s**t you dumb f**k! if you do anything on tv, radio or the big screen you're forced to join the goddamn union. you don't have a choice! my ex-wife got bit parts in two movies. after getting a part as an extra in the third movie she was told she had to join the union. not joining wasn't an option.
limbaugh and crew have more money than god. why and the f**k would they willingly join a union and pay union dues? what and the hell is a union going to do for them?
for the love of god...use your stinking brain.
karmashockMar 1, 2011
Labor monopolies force people to support them because they're monopolies.
that's like saying people that bashed Windows OS when it was the only real OS around were hypocrites for still using it.