Are Unions A Bigger Threat To The US Than Terrorists?

Question

Remember how the war on terror is, like, the worst war this country has ever faced?
Well, apparently it's not that scary. At least compared to those scarier union workers.
The U.S. Senate began debating legislation to bolster America's security on Wednesday with the White House threatening a veto because one part would extend union protection to 45,000 airport workers.
The overall bill would implement many of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 commission.
The measure would also let state and local governments share information with federal authorities, build better communication systems and provide grants to help high-risk areas prepare for disasters.
White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said if the labor provision remains in the legislation, "senior advisers would recommend" Bush "veto the bill." 36 Republican senators sent a letter to Bush on Tuesday saying they would provide the votes to sustain a veto in the Senate.
They are putting the nation's safety in peril.

Answer 1

You cant compare unions to terrorist. That is just wrong. If you are asking if unions are what they used to stand for? No Are they good for this country? Not anymore. yes I have been in a union, and I prefer not to. I guess I am just not lazy. I would rather work for $18 an hour as opposed to having to sit on a bench or walk a picket line because I am being asked to GASP! Help pay for my own healthcare! Unions seem to be looking for hand outs. Times have changed. If you wanna walk a picket line for $5.00 a day, be my guest. I have no problem crossing that line to do a job that you are so against doing because you want top pay and top healthcare for. We all want the best. But, the difference between union and non union in my opionion, union wants it handed to them, non unions dont mind working for it. I asked a union guy to cover the phone for a second, HE threw something and hit me in the eye. He also said no because he had a minute left on his lunch.

Answer 2

Unions are by and large the reason why America has gone from being innovators and world-leaders in business and manufacturing to being completely uncompetitive on the world stage. Labor and transportation costs have gone beyond what can be deemed reasonable in any other part of the world so that what it costs an American company to procure raw materials and produce an item may be the same or even less than in many parts of the world, but then factor in all these other artificially inflated costs and you find that the only market in the world that American manufactured products can be sold to is America.

At the same time, service levels domestically have dramatically slid while Unions dictate rules for hiring and firing that have practically nothing to do with how well someone performs their job function. America was once a beacon of a meritocracy, but now it's wallowing in mediocrity.

Unions are necessary when it comes to demanding certain rights such as healthcare or a fair wage for workers in individual companies (a CEO can't be making $25 million a year while over 50% of the company toils for less than a livable wage). Unions are dangerous when they don't take the circumstances of individual companies into consideration, or the economy as a whole or the rights and needs of the consumer who has to pay to support "Buy American".

I say America would benefit more in the long run by getting rid of the minimum wage and allowing wages to rise naturally by companies having to offer competitive wages in order to fill their demand for labor. The cost of living will plummet back down to real levels, not artifically high levels. Let's be honest, apartment complex owners (for instance) tend to raise their rent above what a minimum wage worker would reasonably be able to afford in order to "keep out certain elements" which usually mean blacks who have traditionally been suffering under minimum wage. Food prices are higher than anywhere else in the world because it costs more to manufacture and transport in the U.S. than anywhere else. Once the cost of bare necessities begins to drop, a livable wage is going to be attainable at a much lower pay scale.

Of course, there would be some profiteers who would seek to maximize profit rather than drop prices and maintain a steady margin, so the government should institute price controls for practically all food items, and monitor other living expenses such as utilities, rent and transportation costs interceding where necessary for only a period of time such as 5 years in a drive to put more Americans back to work and make American companies more competitive (not more profitable necessarily). Naturally, workers will benefit and the economy will benefit as a whole under such circumstances. And in a competitive job market (more and more jobs, less unemployed, tipping the negotiating power back to the individual worker) wages will rise

To do nothing would be to watch America go down the toilet at the next recession when other emerging markets kick it up into overdrive to wedge American products out of an already shaky but barely self-sustaining domestic market. "Buy American" only works if Americans can reasonably afford to do so while scraping out a living and Americans already buy more Chinese and Malaysian products now during a fairly robust economy.

P.S.- And I'm a Democrat by the way... just refuse to be pigeon holed into thinking about a subject based on the way I vote.

Answer 3

Who is putting the nation's safety in peril? The Dems, for protecting labor, or Bush, for looking to veto a security bill to screw over labor and protect corporate profits in a race to the bottom?

It does appear Bush is more afraid of unions than terrorists, which I think is your point, but when you say "They are putting the nation's safety in peril." the "they" is completely ambiguous. The Bush administration? Unions? Senate Dems? Senate Republicans?

I'm assuming you're talking about the GOP.

Answer 4

I think you have that wrong. It is the Senators who added this provision to the bill that are a threat to the US.

If they do not have anymore concern about our safety than to attach such a provision to the proposed legislation knowing it is going to create a Presidential veto than once again I say they are the threat not the White House.

Answer 5

I have been a firm believer that the Union's of this country have been and will continue to be the economic downfall for us. Why is it that vehicle with the sum part of what it is made of is about $14,000 but it cost the consumer $45,000, go ahead tatke a guess! Just one small example!

Answer 6

What the Hell has unions have to do with security?
This is how stupid and harmfull laws get passed,tack them on to an unrelated bill and sneak them in .
You can bet it was the Dems trying to sneak this crap in.

Some of the unions I've had to deal with were terrorists,pay out your nose ,just to have a job.

Answer 7

confident, i discover it very offensive. I do have self assurance that this replaced into performed to attempt & take down the Tea events that have been going to happen on 4/15/09. i discussed in a prior undergo someones question, I do have self assurance it rather is profiling & profiling is misguided.........Tongue & cheek there persons. i ask your self how our adult men & women people serving interior the militia experience having fought against terrorists, just to get domicile & be called one?

Answer 8

No, of course not. They're second. No, third. The Dumbocrat Party is either 1 or 2. (sorry, the Dumbocratic Party)

Answer 9

no unless they are corrupt which is possible sometimes I suppose. In the main I think unions are the best thing that ever happened for the working people.

Answer 10

if we need union workers to make america safer, then i say GOOD!! HIRE THEM! who are you to judge? have you ever been in union? i thought not! you are some spoiled, rich, mamas boy who knows nothing about what you are saying! and don't you EVER! COMPARE UNION WORKERS TO THE TERRORISTS! that shows what ignorance you really have, as well as no! morals ata all, you fruitcake! don't like my response? too bad, you ingrate!