You must sign in to take advantage of that feature. Enter your user name and password below. No user ID yet? Get one for free.


Forgot your password?

A blog about Kern County and Politics.
About TomW


Real Name:
Tom Webster
Gender:
male
Member Since:
August 14, 2006
Last Signed In:
November 01, 2009
Profile Views:
11969
Blog Views:
14119
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Inauguration in DC
Looking for Obama campaign space
Debate Watch Party at The Fox Theater!
Obama Family Rally in Beach Park Today from noon to 5!
One Last Time for the Fans - Drinking Liberally Tonight
Bloggers and Lagers: This Saturday from Noon to Three at Pizzaville
Bloggers' Beer and Pizza at PizzaVille on Saturday
Drinking Liberally - The bar is now open!
Drinking Liberally Thursday Night
Not Yet Drinking Liberally
Archives
August 06
September 06
October 06
November 06
December 06
January 07
February 07
March 07
April 07
May 07
June 07
July 07
August 07
September 07
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
September 08
October 08
November 08
December 08
January 09
February 09
March 09
April 09
May 09
June 09
July 09
August 09
September 09
October 09
November 09
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL

Share!


TomW - > All Politics Are Local -> McCarthy votes against Free Choice Act
McCarthy votes against Free Choice Act

Looks like our freshman Congressman has someone other than working people in mind when he thinks about the people who he represents.  Today, he voted against the Employee Free Choice Act.  The Majority Leader describes the act this way:

http://speaker.gov/newsroom...

“The Employee Free Choice Act is the most important labor law reform legislation of this generation.  But this legislation is about more than labor law: it is about basic labor rights, about the rule of the majority free from intimidation, and about protecting jobs .

“It is a guarantee - when a majority of workers say they want a union, they will get a union.

“Many of the benefits all workers enjoy today are the results of the struggles of organized labor – and their victories have not just benefited union workers.  Millions of those who never had the chance to join a union, enjoy better wages, safer workplaces and greater rights because of the battles fought by union members.  Unions have helped make America the most prosperous, most productive nation in the world, with a vibrant middle class.  Organized labor has helped put America in the lead.

I am biased because I think people should be able to come together to decide what is right for themselves and their families.  But I'll happily defend that bias against anyone who believes that only corporations have rights.  It is a sad day when a town like Bakersfield, which is traditionally blue collar, is represented by someone in Congress who believes in free markets for companies, not for people.

Text of the bill is here:  http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-b...:

 

 

Posted in these Groups:
Topics: Kevin McCarthy, unions, hr 800, Employee Free Choice Act
posted by TomW on Thursday, March 1, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 408 times
43 comments from 15 users

1

posted by TomW on Mar 1, 2007 at 02:51 PM
The bill passed anyway, but it makes me wonder if McCarthy got the memo that we the people are paying attention again.
posted by randomfactor on Mar 1, 2007 at 02:51 PM

Remember, the Republican spin on this is that it's possibly the worst bill ever passed, and they're including Prohibition and the Alien and Sedition Acts in that list.

.

Bush will veto the bill even if it does clear the Senate.  The guy's going to be a kryptonite anchor for any (R) running in 2008.

posted by ProgressivePete2 on Mar 1, 2007 at 02:57 PM
It's no surprise to me that he voted against it. The GOP is definitely anti worker/anti union. I guess the people around here still vote for them because they hate "the gays" and "the illegals" as much as their leaders do.
posted by randomfactor on Mar 1, 2007 at 02:58 PM
Republicans are a "big tent" party, Pete.  They let you in if you're rich *OR* clueless.
posted by ProgressivePete2 on Mar 1, 2007 at 03:22 PM
Tom, can you change the title of this blog to:

McCarthy votes against American Workers.

It seems more fitting.
posted by AudreyB on Mar 1, 2007 at 03:57 PM
Didn't Norma Rae settle this "way back when".  I didn't know it was still an issue.
posted by adampayne on Mar 1, 2007 at 05:05 PM
I'm just grateful the bill passed the House! Maybe we are reaching a turning point and can begin to reclaim some workers' rights.
It is so bad today in the workforce for so many, particularly entrant level folks at too many companies. The reality for many laid-off or simply jettisoned folks today are the facts that entrant level spans all age groups now, and a tremendous amount of skill sets, that was not the case twenty to thirty years ago on such a broad scale. Today to see new hires go without health care or vacation time for one to two years is brutish. The current growing scenario by management to make people working for them contract hires, or to restrict hours for individuals to maintain part-time categorization to eliminate any health or vacation obligations is wrong!
 
posted by TomW on Mar 1, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Stepped out for a bit.  I thought about the title change, but decided for now to keep it as is.  He did definately vote against the American worker though.

Audrey: I wish this had been settled.  As we've seen in recent years though, you never really win these battles.  The water keeps coming down, and all you can do is grab a bucket and get to work.
posted by anglo1 on Mar 1, 2007 at 06:29 PM
Tom, I don't know much about the bill but the speaker on one link stated the median income for families has fallen $3,000.  Fallen every year for the last four years because of Bush.  The Census Bureau income records shows only the District of Columbia showing any decrease and I believe this was only for the last two years. I didn't get who was speaking to Pelosi, do you know, I could have missed it.  I was a union member for 30 yrs. and know the benefits and some of evils of them, in most cases the good out weighs the bad  The link to the bill came up empty.  Even Kern County uses odd hiring practices and even more odd and unfair probationary and training pay scales to save money.  One of the reasons why the KCFD loses so may good people to other fire agencies.  Our union was in on the negotiations.  Could be different now but I don't think so.
posted by TomW on Mar 1, 2007 at 06:43 PM
Hey anglo, sorry about the link, thomas is acting goofy.  Here's a pdf: http://frwebgate.access.gpo...

As for the wages, what I found is that per capita inflation adjusted income is flat.  http://www.census.gov/hhes/... I'll poke around tonight or tomorrow and see if I can figure out where she got that number.  Something about working age families.  I'll give them a call if I can't find it.

In the link, that's a speech, so she wasn't talking *to* anyone.  ;)

Unions are tricky, and the main problem I've seen is when good people let bad people take them over.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes.
posted by anonymous on Mar 1, 2007 at 07:32 PM

WHy are the supporters of this bill so against elections and secret ballots in determining representation?? That is how we elect our leaders.  That is how people have been deciding whether to represented by a union.  So why change it now to where an election and secret ballot is no longer needed?? Hmmmmm??

posted by TomW on Mar 1, 2007 at 07:40 PM
Anon: Huh?  Can you explain what that means?  Preferably without the hyperbole about the supporters.
posted by anonymous on Mar 1, 2007 at 07:40 PM
I didn't find any wording in H.R. 800 that would prevent union thugs from going up to workers and threatening them with bodily harm if they did not fill out a union card. Surely, a law that is called the Employee Free Choice Act would have some provision preventing them from being harrassed by union organizers to fill out a card.   Now that the law eliminates voting and secret ballots, where is the protection for the workers that do not want to be in unions?? Where is their CHOICE???  Huh Steve Swenson?? 
posted by anonymous on Mar 1, 2007 at 07:55 PM
Tom, pretty simple explanation.  Thanks to HR 800, secret ballots and elections will no longer be used to determine if workers will be represented by a Union.  Explain to me how shidt canning elections and secret ballots is an Employee Free Choice??  Explain that to me.. If there are no elections and secret ballots, what is keeping union organizing thugs from harming me if a refuse to sign their union cards?? Huh, what free choice protections do I have from that??
posted by anonymous on Mar 1, 2007 at 08:04 PM

AudreyB, bless your heart.  Workers have been able to form unions for decades.  They formed unions the same way we elect our leaders, by having government monitored elections using secret ballots.  Thanks to the Democrats, that has been crap canned.  The democrats just threw out government monitored elections and secret ballots.  Now all a union has to do to get union representation is to call a meeting of all the employees, and have them come up one by one and "ask" them to sign a union card.  If enough people sign the cards, the union is born. Now tell me, if you really didn't want to be in a union, how comfortable would you be in going up to the front and refusing to sign a union card in front of all your co workers and  union thugs??  Would you really feel all that comfortable walking out to your car knowing that you refused to sign a union card??

 

posted by anonymous on Mar 2, 2007 at 07:28 AM

Here is another little gem TomW won't tell you about the Employee Free Choice Act.  The union campaigning can go on for decades.  There is no time limit in which each side states their case, then a secret ballot vote is held and the case decided.  No siree.  Not anymore.  Lets say the union organizers come up 5 cards short in their union card signature drive.  If you are one that did not sign their card, look out.  You no longer have any protections from being harrassed at the work place to sign the union card.  None.  The union will harrass you until they get the number of cards they need. There is no time limit. It can go on indefinetly.

Further more, this legislation was done without any input or amendment being allowed. Yup, that is how bills are now passed in the House.  I guess Tuna Pelosi was right.  She really did change the tone in Washington.  Now the minority party does not get to introduce amendments. 

Shame on you TomW for insinuating that McCarthy doesn't care about the american worker.  This is a shameful piece of legislation that is nothing more tha payback for the unions that supported the democrats.  Nothing more than payback.  COme out of your spider hole, TomW and debate the issues.

posted by anonymous on Mar 2, 2007 at 07:36 AM
Econ 101.  Unions are bad for the economy because they artificially raise the price of labor.  This creates a dead weight burden for all of society.  Unions did their job during the industrial age to create better working conditions and protect children.  Now unions are only about the money and are not necessary.
posted by anonymous on Mar 2, 2007 at 07:41 AM
Sounds like a bunch of lefty whining to me.  Facts are the only thing Unions are good for is driving up the cost of everything.  The Prison Guard Union is the new mafia in California and what did we get out of the Grocery store strike?  Tripled prices, that's what we got.  There was a time when unions served a purpose and that was about a hundred years ago, NOT today.
posted by anonymous on Mar 2, 2007 at 07:43 AM
Unions are great!! Just look at Chrysler!!!!
posted by mattloch on Mar 2, 2007 at 08:20 AM
Econ 101: minimum wages are bad for the economy because they artificially raise the price of labor. Hell, wages period are "bad" for the economy because they require companies "waste" money on employees. I hereby advocate the return of slavery to help out the economy. Thanks Anon(s)! You have helped me see the light! Your logic is inescapable, and certainly persuasive. Your examples of prices of food tripling without evidence and a car company with administrative problems far exceeding any caused by unions are excellent ones, and ones which requires no more analysis than simply saying so! I'm sold!
posted by steveeswenson on Mar 2, 2007 at 08:41 AM
Anon,
   I'm not in favor of this bill. I believe secret ballot elections are a fair way to determine if a union should be formed at a business.
This bill would still allow that, but the election could be bypassed if enough people sign union cards.
  What I am in favor of is controls on company tactics designed to place fear in the eyes of employees voting on whether to form a union. I am also in favor of protecting the jobs of employees who want to form a union.
    You're wrong about unions not serving a purpose. They bring fairness and a voice of the employees in the workplace.
    The days when unions got gigantic pay increases are gone. Unions have improved the workplace for all, not just the union represented.
posted by randomfactor on Mar 2, 2007 at 08:48 AM
They don't teach the stuff about the postive effects of minimum wage laws and unions until Econ 102, Mattloch.
posted by TomW on Mar 2, 2007 at 09:08 AM
OK, couple of things, anon.  If you're going to talk about this, you need to source your arguments.  Regurgitating something without a source is just silly.  You say you don't find language in this bill that prevents unions from harassing people.  I don't find language that prevents them from invading China either.  Are you worried about that as well?  The point is that a) this is an amendment to a larger bill and b) there are other laws which prevent that.

Secondly, you talk about time limits.  They are in the bill.  90 days is the maximum.  Can you cite to the contrary?

As for your Econ 101 argument, that is the problem.  You are applying the logic of Econ 101.  There's a reason that we don't let first year econ students run the Fed.  It is summed up nicely by the phrase "ceteris paribus".

From wikipedia:


Ceteris paribus is a Latin phrase, literally translated as "with other things [being] the same," and usually rendered in English as "all other things being equal." A prediction, or a statement about causal or logical connections between two states of affairs, is qualified by ceteris paribus in order to acknowledge, and to rule out, the possibility of other factors which could override the relationship between the antecedent and the consequent.

[snip]

Such assumptions are also relevant to the descriptive purpose of theoretic modeling. In such circumstances, clinicians such as physicists, economists, and behavioral psychologists apply simplifying assumptions in order to devise or explain an analytical framework that does not necessarily prove cause and effect, but nevertheless is useful for describing fundamental concepts within a realm of inquiry.
_____________

In other words, that argument works as long as it is kept separate from reality.  You wouldn't design a spaceship based on Physics 101, why would you try to design the economy around (a poor understanding of) Econ 101?

As for the unions having done their jobs, that's an interesting take.  They certainly did.  But unions are part of the free market.  If there were no demand, the supply would fall.  Econ 101.  Or does that not apply in this case?  :)
posted by TomW on Mar 2, 2007 at 09:17 AM
Steve: "Unions have improved the workplace for all, not just the union represented."  This is the most basic thing people need to know about unions.  The presence of unions helps everyone, not just the unionized.
posted by dusty1215 on Mar 2, 2007 at 09:55 AM
The unions do not have the clout they used to. All the union busting doesn't help. Reagan did it against the air traffic controllers. Some folks think Reagan's term signaled the beginning of the end for unions.
posted by anonymous on Mar 2, 2007 at 10:00 AM
Leave Mocus alone, everyone knows that all unions are run by the mafia, and working family women and men should just be glad they have a job.
posted by TomW on Mar 2, 2007 at 10:00 AM
I think the key is balance, Dusty.  The businesses are in competition with unions.  The conflict makes sure everyone gets something.  When the government comes in and works against the people, it is a bad day.
posted by dusty1215 on Mar 2, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I agree Tom, the whole point to Unions was to keep the businesses from using the workers as slaves.
posted by mattloch on Mar 2, 2007 at 10:32 AM
Now now Tom. There you go, letting facts and reality intrude in on what would otherwise be a "no duh" argument based on false logic and stereotypes. You're playing right into the librul's hands, don't you see? How are we going to have a discussion with that coward now that you're raised the bar off of the ground? What a shame..... This thread just got real boring, real quick. Thanks for nothing.....
posted by TomW on Mar 2, 2007 at 10:52 AM
For anon 1, I see the issue with the secret ballots, but I think that there were a lot of concerns about electioneering.  This is actually a valid debate point though.  Should businesses be able to call for a secret ballot vote after the employees have signed up?  I can see the value in it.  I can also see where a business could, knowing how many had signed up, basically threaten those that did and getting some to back away.
posted by TomW on Mar 2, 2007 at 10:55 AM
C'mon Mattloch, you're the one who brought up slavery.  Doesn't that violate some corollary of Godwin's Law?
posted by anonymous on Mar 2, 2007 at 08:30 PM

Tom.

1.  Excuse me.. You are worried about electioneering with secret ballots?? Just what exactly is electioneering??  The ballots and election is overseen by the government.  You can't say that about collecting union cards.  If there was any electioneering going on, it has been by the unions. There was a time limit within which the elections had to be held.  When the unions knew they would not win the election, they would file a grievance so the election would have to be postponed, and they could continue to sway people to vote their way. That is a fact. I have seen it in practice.

2.  There is no time limit with H.R. 800.  Union thugs can continue to harrass employees for their signed union card until they have the signatures they need.  SHould businesses be able to call for a secret ballot vote after employees have signed up?? Well, why not?  If the employees really want to be in a union, it is going to show up in the vote, won't it??  If it is a secret ballot, how can the employer know who to threaten if they do not know who voted for it and who did not?? If you are so worried about the employer threatening those who sign up for the union, why do you want to get rid of the secret ballot??

posted by tonyh on Mar 2, 2007 at 10:28 PM

I don't like Unions. I've been on both sides of this fence and didn't like either side. The ULTIMATE protest of a bad company is to quit and go to work somewhere else.

If it's that bad of a place, then they'll lose a lot of their best people. The only ones who'll stick around are those that aren't desireable enough to be hired by other places. That hurts a business more than you might think.

I refuse to work in a Union Shop. Life is WAY too short, to put up with the associated waste and abuse.

The American Auto Industry is in the shape that it's in today, because of the UAW.

posted by TomW on Mar 2, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Anon:

1. Maybe you are right.  I haven't seen this myself.  Can you point me to a news story somewhere of this happening?  I'm not saying it hasn't, just that I'm not in the practice of relying on the word of anonymous website posters.

2. My understanding is that people sign cards to instate a union.  The company can then challenge that and request a secret ballot vote.  Do you believe that the people who run these companies don't know who is supporting the union?  The other point, which I hadn't understood before, is that unions aren't only allowed a certain amount of time to unionize a shop.  So what timeframe seems right to you?  Should the union be allowed to show up for a week?  A year?

posted by TomW on Mar 2, 2007 at 11:50 PM

Tony, you and I disagree strongly over what has caused the problems in the auto industry.  In my opinion, much of it started because American companies wanted to cut costs by shipping jobs overseas.  Turns out that you don't actually save that much and the work is a lot worse.  Then people stop buying your cars and you don't have as much money.  Another problem has been that American auto companies started trying to make cars that everyone liked instead of cars that anyone loved.  I'd be interested though to see why they get the blame from you.

As for the union shops, it really depends on the union people.  I can tell you that your business benefits because there are unionized shops.  There is always a place you and others in your field can go if the non-unionized shops start cutting down on benefits and wages.

posted by anonymous on Mar 3, 2007 at 01:58 PM

Tom, I don't need news stories to find out how unions operate.  I've seen it in the company I work with.  The ones that wanted to form the union were the bottom of the barrel, by far.  They had no motivation, were not good at their jobs, and they  brought down productivity. They were basically losers.  They were always on the verge of being let go because of their performance, not because they wanted to form a union.

SHouldn't both the union and the employer be able to present their offers, and then let the employees vote?? Yup, that used to be the way it was.  Not anymore.   The union just has to coerce enough union cards, and the deal is done.

Unions are outdated. Todays worker knows that they will change jobs at least 7 times in their career. They have no desire to join an organization that awards how long you've punched a clock. They want to be part of a system that awards performance and productivity.

posted by tonyh on Mar 3, 2007 at 06:32 PM

Throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's American Automakers built junk.

Fit and finish was poor, at best. Quality was a toss of the coin. The cars made NO power, but burned a lot of gas. They weren't comfortible to drive.

They didn't listen to their market. They built what they wanted and fully expected the public to buy them. That's how the Japanese Car makers got in the door. They build cars that were everything that the American cars weren't.

Some of it can be blamed on design. Some can be blamed on business decisions made by management. I seriously doubt that any American cars were designed to not have enough paint on them, or NO primer coat under the paint on some body panels. I also don't think that there were any business decisions made by management to leave out a couple of seat mounting bolts or to not lubricate the rear end before the cars left the assembly line. These are labor issues. The people responsible should have been fired. Because of the Union, they're allowed to continue showing up for work and not caring if they do a good job or not.

Tom,

Tell me, how would it make you feel to buy a new pickup and find out that there were only 2 bolts holding the bed on, rather than all 6? How about buying a new pickup only to have the cowel rust over within a year (in California)?

Crappy workmanship, without worry of any consequences is what can be expected in a Union shop. A guy gets a little seniority and lays down. This makes him dead wood that must be carried. This happens WAY too much. There is no heroism for punching the same clock for a long time. It adds no extra value to the saleable product. Why should it be rewarded? The heroism comes from skill, accuracy and performence. These things add value to the saleable product and are worth a reward.

I also subscribe to the "Whatever it Takes to get the job done" work ethic. Unions punish this behavior, out of fear that it will keep new jobs from being invented.

Here's an example:

Company makes Welded Steel Tubing

Tube Mill Operator has to make a tooling change for a different size of tube. The tooling is big, heavy and dirty. The guy that normally helps, went home at noon, to see his kid in a School Play. Engineer is standing around studying performance of a machine modification. He knows how to change the tooling over (and it's very heavy work). He takes off his tie, rolls up his sleeves and pitches in to help. Tube Mill Operator appreciates the help..................Guy emptying garbage cans files Grievance on Engineer (who designed the tooling) for twisting a wrench on a Tube Mill. Union makes a big stink over a guy pitching in to help a friend. When the Tube Mill is running well, the Operator sits and watches it. When it's not running well, he works like a dog. The guy emptying garbage cans couldn't help do the job on a bet..........no math skills or mechanical ability.

This is the Union environment. I was the Engineer in the above example 20 years ago, and the Tube Mill Operator is still a good friend. The Union was voted out of that shop about 3 years after the above example occurred.

posted by anonymous on Mar 3, 2007 at 07:51 PM
You can't negotiate job security. That is a lesson the unions and their members have failed to learn.  Performance guarantees job security, not a union.
posted by TomW on Mar 4, 2007 at 01:10 AM

Tony, neither of us would survive long in an environment like the one you described.  On the other hand, there were times when I first started out in construction when I worked for some guys that would send a 20 feet up on a beam with no straps to do a fix.  There was stuff I said no to.  I also didn't have a family to support.

I also did (very short) stint at a hardware store that required a lot of crazy stuff from their employees, including requiring us to clock out before we finished some of our work.

I agree that a lot of the stuff that unions do is crap, but a lot of the stuff businesses do is crap too.  If all of the business owners were like you, we'd never need unions.  Unfortunately, a lot of the same types of people who manage unions also manage businesses.

BTW, I'm driving a Toyota pickup now and am ready to sell it and buy American again.  It's the only foreign car I've ever owned.  I bought it new and a week after I drove it off the lot, the transmission dipstick assembly fell off and the transmission drained out. 

posted by TomW on Mar 4, 2007 at 01:20 AM
Anon, I totally get what you are talking about.  There was a time when companies took care of their employees and employees took care of business.  People now change jobs because there is no team mentality anywhere.  The companies don't want to invest in employees that are going to leave and employees don't care about companies that don't care about them.  I don't know how you break the cycle.  Not to over expand the scope of this, but this is the same problem we have with our government, where "union members" don't care about the leadership and the leadership just looks out for themselves. We see this all over now, in workplaces, families, government, even declining church attendance, where everyone just takes care of themselves.  Obviously there are a lot of exceptions, but it is a systemic problem.  Unions of any kind are in danger from this "go it alone" mentality.
posted by tonyh on Mar 4, 2007 at 06:41 PM

Requiring employees to clock out before finishing work is totally wrong, and against the law. The Employer can get into a lot of trouble for pulling crap like that. I've worked for people who did petty things like that, but not for long. Unions can't fix a crooked Employer. Going out of business for lack of good help and/or a poor reputation in the marketplace can.

With all of the labor laws on the books these days, and a free market, Unions are now obsolete, like gasoline powered washing machines. They worked great in their time, but their time is now past, and they serve no real purpose but to feed the parasites in the head office.

Your Toyota Pickup, where was it built? I hate it, but I'll bet it says Made in USA on it...........

 

posted by TomW on Mar 4, 2007 at 07:59 PM
Tony, the hardware place is right next to a college, so they can have bad sevice and still do just fine.  I agree that if companies followed all the laws on the books, unions would be less useful.  But what happens if they don't?  Everyone should just find another job?  I think that the unions have a strong place still, if for no other reason than they keep wages up for everyone.  I just can't see them s obsolete.  If more people got involved in doing good things with the unions, I think they'd be better.

As for m pickup, you're probably right.  I actually never checked, just because it would piss me off if it was built in the USA.  And it wouldn't change a thing.
posted by redkernhero on Mar 28, 2007 at 08:56 AM

You miss the point, we elected Kevin to vote Red, and he is doing his job, don’t you think, Uncle Bill left any instructions behind? I agree with anonymous and Swenson, unions and unions elected way secret ballot are undemocratic, they should be appointed from a friends list, like corporations, the real Americans do it.

Unions only disrupt the workplace by allowing employees to fluff off on company time, by having breaks and lunch breaks, vacations, and benefit all those things that hurt the bottom line.

I also agree about Toyota, somehow they slipped my new Camary on me I wanted to buy American and it says made in Japan on the door, inside those sneaky Orientals.

Voting for any union measure Kevin says is like cutting and running, like micro managing the generals. The only thing unions do is protect the criminals, as yourself this, if there had been a union would we have had an Enron, a Tyco, no these guys would still be out on the street.

Yeah unions are obsolete, and every worker will have more jobs than he can count, it all depends on how many times they take jobs that leave the country, if they want secure steady employment go to China , India , or Bangladesh. And make Nike’s for 20 cents an hour. Hey they will also benefit from no union intrusions in these countries, we should learn from them.

Kevin we love you keep doing your job and sticking it to that stupid middle class, they deserve it for their voting patterns.

1

  (You need to be signed in to leave a comment)

Advertisement