Unions' Health Benefits May Avoid Taxes - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

CharlesDavenport · #1 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

From - Unions? Health Benefits May Avoid Tax Under Proposal (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

June 26 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate proposal to impose taxes for the first time on “gold-plated” health plans may bypass generous employee benefits negotiated by unions.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, the chief congressional advocate of taxing some employer-provided benefits to help pay for an overhaul of the U.S. health system, says any change should exempt perks secured in existing collective- bargaining agreements, which can be in place for as long as five years.

The exception, which could make the proposal more politically palatable to Democrats from heavily unionized states such as Michigan, is adding controversy to an already contentious debate. It would shield the 12.4 percent of American workers who belong to unions from being taxed while exposing some other middle-income workers to the levy.

“I can’t think of any other aspect of the individual income tax that treats benefits of different people differently because of who they work for,” said Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that often criticizes Democrats’ economic proposals. Edwards said the carve-out “smacks of political favoritism.”

How do Democrats get away with even talking about proposing this crap?

JDJarvis · #2 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

The Democrats have been all about political favoritism in one form or another for 40+ years now.

Tanngrisnir3 · #3 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

The Democrats have been all about political favoritism in one form or another for 40+ years now.

You misspelled 'all political parties' and 'forever'

JDJarvis · #4 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

You misspelled 'all political parties' and 'forever'

No I didn't. Because that isn't the behavior of "all political parties". Such ill-conceived notions keep people trapped with the two big ones that have totally co opted the U.S. political system.

MattInFla · #5 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

No I didn't. Because that isn't the behavior of "all political parties". Such ill-conceived notions keep people trapped with the two big ones that have totally co opted the U.S. political system.

OK, it might be the case that some obscure political parties have not put political favoritism into practice.

However, one might hypothesize this is not because of any inherent goodness in these fringe parties, but rather because they've never had the power, and hence the opportunity, to do so.

Personally, I doubt that these other parties would behave any differently if they had the chance.

Matt

dblack · #6 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Wish I had a lobbyist...

JDJarvis · #7 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by MattLarson

OK, it might be the case that some obscure political parties have not put political favoritism into practice.

However, one might hypothesize this is not because of any inherent goodness in these fringe parties, but rather because they've never had the power, and hence the opportunity, to do so.

Personally, I doubt that these other parties would behave any differently if they had the chance.

Matt

So voting for the two teams that have batted the ball back and forth for decades has been the sane way to go? Favoritism isn't written into our basic political system, parties aren't even in our basic political system, people certainly lie straight at us and say we have a two party system while we most surely do not.
Buying of votes is just so flatly obvious these days and the no tax on union health (or reduced taxes) is just another pay-out to a voting block which the politicians only care about for a few weeks every 2 or 4 years.

dblack · #8 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Has anyone here read Mancur Olson's "The Rise and Decline of Nations"? It's a rather dry, scholarly text, investigating the dysfunctions that inevitably occur in a maturing democracy. He lays out, through numerous case studies and his own theory, how voters in a democracy naturally organize into voting blocks that, as they grow in number and power, serve the interests of their consituencies at the expense of the general public.

In a government where redistribution of wealth or income is in any way a factor, these voting blocks tend to form as "distributional coalitions", with the primary function of maximizing their members "returns" - usually at the expense of the general welfare. Anyway, the general theme of the book is that these coalitions come to dominate the governing process, leaving the interests of the broad population mostly disregarded. It's a pretty pessimistic book, eventually concluding that the only way to counter this process is through draconian efforts to bust up these coalitions - or outright revolution.

redstone357 · #9 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

It is quite amazing how blatant this administration and congress in their support of the unions who so generously financed their campaigns. The media won't tell the average Joe what is going on, so they figure they can get away with almost anything. Never mind that the unions destroyed out automobile industry. It is clear that wrecking the American economy is their objective.

jet57 · #10 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by redstone357

It is quite amazing how blatant this administration and congress in their support of the unions who so generously financed their campaigns. The media won't tell the average Joe what is going on, so they figure they can get away with almost anything. Never mind that the unions destroyed out automobile industry. It is clear that wrecking the American economy is their objective.

Welome to the forum.

First, I'd like for you to explain the statement that I highlighted in your post. This is a rumor that I have heard Hannity propagate with nothing factual to back it up.
This kind of thing is born of ignorance. It's also a hold over, in the south, of the reconstructionist period: The Northern War of Aggression etc, so I always offer the benefit of the doubt to the person making the assertion. However, it is 2009 and perhaps it's time to start asking why folks like yourself still believe that nonsense about collective bargaining

Secondly, let's look a little bit at the Bloomberg article quoted in the opening of the thread:

Quote:

It can also affect companies such as Henderson, Nevada- based Zappos.com, where workers’ $11 per hour pay is supplemented by employer-paid health insurance plans worth about $7,500. Federal workers’ health benefits are worth about $4,200 for individuals and $13,000 for families.

One the top working wages across the country, and in San Francisco in 1983 was $13.07 an hour. (This from an existing pay stub that I still have). Twenty six yers later, Henderson company in Nevada is paying $11.00 an hour. From this we learn something right off the bat: income is stagnant.

One of the key beneifts of union membership has been that the healthcare cost is born by the company and the union proper who are a part of a co-op that manage the fund through an employer and union based board. Because of the co-op discounts apply therfore, hourly contributions are in the $5.00 an hour range which is tacked on to the hourly package per employee. The beneifts are outstanding and the employer has the advantage of not having to worry about it and in collective bargaiing agreements, the labor costs can be acruately projected for the life of the contract. (This seventy five dollar an hour quote for UAW workers is a total package per hour. The real wages are less than that. And let's face facts again: the auto companies during all this time could very well afford those wages based on what we then and now know about company spending habbits. They just didn't want to pay it).

Incerases in cost have been traditionally negotiated into existing agreements by way of ryders that provide for bargaining unit contributions on a temporary basis. Some contracts and unions have them, some don't. This subject comes under a title known as Matainance of Benefits. Again, these facts are born out from another quote form the Bloomberg article.

Quote:

“Once a collective bargaining agreement is set, employer’s budgets are set, workers expectations are set. It doesn’t make sense to go back in the middle of the contract and change it,” …

I think it should be very well understood; and it's funny that this never comes up in the national debate: unions and or companys and their non-union employees have no say-so in the cost of healthcare rates. All we can do is shop different isurance carriers who's rates and benefits now run about the same. Just as with our now crashed economy, the major players in this had equal opportunity to craft national protest that kept the heat on, but profits were so good these types of protests never went anywhere.

The story of unions vs. companies respectively is one of The Ant and the Grasshopper. The unions are concerned about - a living wage that maintains a standard of living which reflects the greatness of our country. Good healthcare for our families, and a future that we work toward for our retirement years. Unions have always fought the profit margin which is increased through obstructionism and outright theft. This was never better exemplified than during the era of the New Deal and the Reagan era from 1979 through today. Now, we are back to 1932 and the typical outcry is, "Unions make too much".

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it": and here we are.

CowboyTed · #11 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by redstone357

It is quite amazing how blatant this administration and congress in their support of the unions who so generously financed their campaigns. The media won't tell the average Joe what is going on, so they figure they can get away with almost anything. Never mind that the unions destroyed out automobile industry. It is clear that wrecking the American economy is their objective.

Nothing to do with making crap cars... Unions are not innocent but the companies have spent more time concentrating on lobbying government so they could build bigger automobiles cheaply. This made US made cars close to unsell-able aboard. This destroyed markets in Europe and Asia for US made cars.

US car companies didn't care because they had bought EU car manufactures or were producing cars in this country under there own name. The Ford Mondeo(in US it was called the Contour) is one EUs most popular cars (it competes with BMW 3 series for the top selling car) today.
The Opel Insignia just won european car of the year. GM used own them, now they have a minority stake.

redstone357 · #12 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Sorry I don't yet know how to use the quote functions good enough to properly answer both of these replies. Thank you for the welcome Jet57. First of all I let me say that I am not a Hannity person, so the inference that I got my information from him is wrong. Secondly I find it laughable that you would equate the fact that unions have destroyed the automobile companies with anti collective bargaining sentiment left over from the War of Southern Independence. I cannot even imagine how one could extrapolate in such ways, but alas not much surprises me anymore. The wage analysis you provided was nice reading but has nothing to do with the issue at hand, nor can your example be used as a basis of anything general. What can be seen and analyzed is the difference between automobile manufacturers here in the US. Take for example GM vs Nissan. The GM owned and UAW controlled Saturn has a plant in Springhill, Tn, just about 30 miles from the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tn. The Saturn plant is a strong union plant and the Nissan plant is a non-union. The Saturn union employees are compensated to a degree that does not match the sales or production of the plant or brand and because of that they rarely, if ever, have turned a profit at that plant. They have massive inefficiency problems and there is almost no way for management to replace ineffective and lazy workers. Contrast this to the Nissan plant only 30 miles away where workers make an excellent wage for the area, have great benefits, and are one of the most efficient and productive plants in America. Attempts by union agitators to organize the Nissan workers into a union have been trounced every year by the happy and productive workers of the profitable and productive Nissan plant. While Tn is a right to work state, the Saturn employees have NEVER been allowed to vote to disband the union. Only now that they plant faces closure are there rumblings. Roger Penske has alluded that he would like to buy the Saturn brand, but there is almost no way he could do this and turn a profit if the union is allowed to continue to dominate the plant. The built in cost of unionization in every car built by the UAW is something akin to $5000, this is well documented and makes it impossible for American car manufacturers to compete. It is also why, as right to work state, the South is enjoying the benefit of so many foreign automobile companies building plants and headquartering their American operations right here in Dixie. These include BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, and Toyota. They find a pool of workers in the south that are highly skilled, have solid work ethics, and are not burdened by unions. There really is no debate, the facts are on the ground. All one has to do is take a look at what is actually going on to know what is working and what is not.

jet57 · #13 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by redstone357

Sorry I don't yet know how to use the quote functions good enough to properly answer both of these replies. Thank you for the welcome Jet57. First of all I let me say that I am not a Hannity person, so the inference that I got my information from him is wrong. Secondly I find it laughable that you would equate the fact that unions have destroyed the automobile companies with anti collective bargaining sentiment left over from the War of Southern Independence. I cannot even imagine how one could extrapolate in such ways, but alas not much surprises me anymore. The wage analysis you provided was nice reading but has nothing to do with the issue at hand, nor can your example be used as a basis of anything general. What can be seen and analyzed is the difference between automobile manufacturers here in the US. Take for example GM vs Nissan. The GM owned and UAW controlled Saturn has a plant in Springhill, Tn, just about 30 miles from the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tn. The Saturn plant is a strong union plant and the Nissan plant is a non-union. The Saturn union employees are compensated to a degree that does not match the sales or production of the plant or brand and because of that they rarely, if ever, have turned a profit at that plant. They have massive inefficiency problems and there is almost no way for management to replace ineffective and lazy workers. Contrast this to the Nissan plant only 30 miles away where workers make an excellent wage for the area, have great benefits, and are one of the most efficient and productive plants in America. Attempts by union agitators to organize the Nissan workers into a union have been trounced every year by the happy and productive workers of the profitable and productive Nissan plant. While Tn is a right to work state, the Saturn employees have NEVER been allowed to vote to disband the union. Only now that they plant faces closure are there rumblings. Roger Penske has alluded that he would like to buy the Saturn brand, but there is almost no way he could do this and turn a profit if the union is allowed to continue to dominate the plant. The built in cost of unionization in every car built by the UAW is something akin to $5000, this is well documented and makes it impossible for American car manufacturers to compete. It is also why, as right to work state, the South is enjoying the benefit of so many foreign automobile companies building plants and headquartering their American operations right here in Dixie. These include BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, and Toyota. They find a pool of workers in the south that are highly skilled, have solid work ethics, and are not burdened by unions. There really is no debate, the facts are on the ground. All one has to do is take a look at what is actually going on to know what is working and what is not.

First let me say that you'll notice a quote button in the lower right hand corner of any post. By inserting html tag (quote) then (/quote), which should be bracketed [ ] ( I added parenthesis so you could see it). You can seperate a post into sections that you can address one at a time: you can 'preview' in your browser and see if you're working it correctly; i.e.

Quote:

First of all I let me say that I am not a Hannity person, so the inference that I got my information from him is wrong.

Whether or not you listen to him was not the point. The point was that what you are saying is al part an parcel with the rhetoric of the right and is in act based on one side of the issue.

Quote:

Secondly I find it laughable that you would equate the fact that unions have destroyed the automobile companies with anti collective bargaining sentiment left over from the War of Southern Independence.

My connection is an asbolute truth. Reconstruction was a forced culture clash. To this day because of the southern culture wherein my family has very deep Tennessee roots (North Carolina 1765), it has been very difficult to organize collective barganing. This began with teh railroads in the late 19th century. The reason that there is no union membership in Japanese plants in the south is because teh Japanese insisted upon it. And since the south is unfriendly to unions to begin with it only stands to reason that that is where they would set up shop. The unprofitable big three who have union plants in the south are suffering due to the bad management that has them where they are now across the board. The profitablity that you speak of in non-union plants is the result of depressed earnings on the part of wage earners: the south has always been behind the vanguard in this context. Saturn is being cancelled for the same reason that Pontiac is being cancelled: the brands no longer sell, cadillac however does.

Quote:

. They have massive inefficiency problems and there is almost no way for management to replace ineffective and lazy workers.

More hyperbole. What the union does for the worker in this instance is protect him or her from office politics. If the standards of union labor were as you think they are, the middle class in this counrty would never have come to rise up to what it was.

Quote:

The wage analysis you provided was nice reading but has nothing to do with the issue at hand, nor can your example be used as a basis of anything general

The wage analysis has everything to do with it! This is the crux of the issue! healthcare costs have skyrocketed and the working people's ability to earn an effective wage to keep up with this inflation has been supressed sucessfully for thirty years. And now that the chickens have come to roost, the unions are being blamed again: which is based on no substantial facts but is rather pursued through a tired old rhetoric. I inserted the wage differences to verify my point. Wages in this country are ghastly compared to the cost of living.

Inefficency starts at the top. Policy, product and manufacturing design also start at the top. The collective barganing ellement provides a stop-gap that keeps the worker out of (as much as possilble) the drives of quotas and internal competition that has an affect on morale. Formewr union members however make some of the best lower and midle management personnel that company can have.

Note this statement by yourself:

Quote:

Attempts by union agitators to organize the Nissan workers into a union have been trounced every year by the happy and productive workers of the profitable and productive Nissan plant. While Tn is a right to work state, the Saturn employees have NEVER been allowed to vote to disband the union.

This statement clearly shows a prejudice on your paret that is born of serious case of lack of experience and ignorance.

1: Organizing efforts are always met by the company targetting those campaigning for representation. The companies hire law firms that specialize in breaking up organizing efforts through fear intimidation and outright lying up to the point: I was an organizer for many many years and know exactly how it goes for workers.

2: Saturn employees - any group of employees - can decertify (that's what it's called. It happens, that's why there's a name for it) anytimne they want. They take their grievances to th union and if those grievancces aren't satisfied then - the union's out: tehe employees don't even need a reason!

Quote:

... the happy and productive workers of the profitable and productive Nissan plant.

Do you now how muchg that sunds like "all the happy workers of the Proletariat march off to work at another day for the glorius company".

There is no autonomy. Team leaders and all that stuff is a ruse designed to increase competetive quotas: I know, I've been there and that company still closed.

Quote:

The built in cost of unionization in every car built by the UAW is something akin to $5000, this is well documented and makes it impossible for American car manufacturers to compete.

I seriously question that amount juxtaposed against every other manufacturing cost by any other company, and I would like to see where you get that information.

I can tell you that many Japanese carrs a re entirely more expensive than American cars adn have been for quite some time: in my memory, teh cange came about 1977 'er so whjen Datsun introduced the 240Z - the first $10,000 Japanese comact to hit the market: certainly not based on their labor costs, and so it is today.

Quote:

They find a pool of workers in the south that are highly skilled, have solid work ethics, and are not burdened by unions. There really is no debate, the facts are on the ground. All one has to do is take a look at what is actually going on to know what is working and what is not.

You have not pointed out one burden: your using catch phrase.

There is debate; it's going on all over the country right now. I'm sorry but your opinions on collective bargaining are just opinions, and they are based on a very poor understanding and working knowledge about collective bargaining.

You have still not specified an answer to my question about your assertion that unions have ruined the American auto industry.

CowboyTed · #14 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by redstone357

Sorry I don't yet know how to use the quote functions good enough to properly answer both of these replies. Thank you for the welcome Jet57. First of all I let me say that I am not a Hannity person, so the inference that I got my information from him is wrong. Secondly I find it laughable that you would equate the fact that unions have destroyed the automobile companies with anti collective bargaining sentiment left over from the War of Southern Independence. I cannot even imagine how one could extrapolate in such ways, but alas not much surprises me anymore. The wage analysis you provided was nice reading but has nothing to do with the issue at hand, nor can your example be used as a basis of anything general. What can be seen and analyzed is the difference between automobile manufacturers here in the US. Take for example GM vs Nissan. The GM owned and UAW controlled Saturn has a plant in Springhill, Tn, just about 30 miles from the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tn. The Saturn plant is a strong union plant and the Nissan plant is a non-union. The Saturn union employees are compensated to a degree that does not match the sales or production of the plant or brand and because of that they rarely, if ever, have turned a profit at that plant. They have massive inefficiency problems and there is almost no way for management to replace ineffective and lazy workers. Contrast this to the Nissan plant only 30 miles away where workers make an excellent wage for the area, have great benefits, and are one of the most efficient and productive plants in America. Attempts by union agitators to organize the Nissan workers into a union have been trounced every year by the happy and productive workers of the profitable and productive Nissan plant. While Tn is a right to work state, the Saturn employees have NEVER been allowed to vote to disband the union. Only now that they plant faces closure are there rumblings. Roger Penske has alluded that he would like to buy the Saturn brand, but there is almost no way he could do this and turn a profit if the union is allowed to continue to dominate the plant. The built in cost of unionization in every car built by the UAW is something akin to $5000, this is well documented and makes it impossible for American car manufacturers to compete. It is also why, as right to work state, the South is enjoying the benefit of so many foreign automobile companies building plants and headquartering their American operations right here in Dixie. These include BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, and Toyota. They find a pool of workers in the south that are highly skilled, have solid work ethics, and are not burdened by unions. There really is no debate, the facts are on the ground. All one has to do is take a look at what is actually going on to know what is working and what is not.

Redstone,

What your describing here is a bad union being run by a worse company... Both are bad.. US companies generally run with the help of the unions. The unions job is to get the best deal for there employees. They know if they ask for too high a price the company will move there next product to a cheaper factory (oversea or in a different plant in the company). The company looks for the best deal on there side... A plant in my home town took about 10% drop to receive the next product line and 100m investment. They sacrificed money for job security. The company knew in this climate that they can ask for the drop in wages while in good times the employees will get it back. Supply and demand.

Ireland has done well out of a massive private-public partnership. This involved all the major employers (Government, Supermarket Chains, McDonnells, Transport, Manufacturing...) and the major unions entering a room and agreeing a wage structure which was geared to the performance of the country (inflation, profits, GDP,...). It generally worked for 15 years, we didn't have a strike for about 7 years. Companies had a security of knowing there labour force was locked to a price. I worked for both sides..

Kind went off the rails in the end.. Mainly political reasons from both sides..

redstone357 · #15 (**permalink**) 06-29-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by jet57

First let me say that you'll notice a quote button in the lower right hand corner of any post. By inserting html tag (quote) then (/quote), which should be bracketed [ ] ( I added parenthesis so you could see it). You can seperate a post into sections that you can address one at a time: you can 'preview' in your browser and see if you're working it correctly; i.e.

Thank you for this, i will work on it..

Whether or not you listen to him was not the point. The point was that what you are saying is al part an parcel with the rhetoric of the right and is in act based on one side of the issue.

Well so what. You are using Micheal Moore points...what is the point????

My connection is an asbolute truth. Reconstruction was a forced culture clash. To this day because of the southern culture wherein my family has very deep Tennessee roots (North Carolina 1765), it has been very difficult to organize collective barganing. This began with teh railroads in the late 19th century. The reason that there is no union membership in Japanese plants in the south is because teh Japanese insisted upon it. And since the south is unfriendly to unions to begin with it only stands to reason that that is where they would set up shop. The unprofitable big three who have union plants in the south are suffering due to the bad management that has them where they are now across the board. The profitablity that you speak of in non-union plants is the result of depressed earnings on the part of wage earners: the south has always been behind the vanguard in this context. Saturn is being cancelled for the same reason that Pontiac is being cancelled: the brands no longer sell, cadillac however does.

You say this is absolute truth, then you proceed not to explain that at all. I highly disagree with you about this assertion but it is really neither here nor there for the main issue. It has to do with Southerners appreciation for individuality and repulsion from collectivism...

More hyperbole. What the union does for the worker in this instance is protect him or her from office politics. If the standards of union labor were as you think they are, the middle class in this counrty would never have come to rise up to what it was.

You sound as though you work for the unions. What the union does for the worker is protect them from being fired for being lazy and unproductive. It really manifested that trait once the lazy baby boomers started running the unions. Your assertion that the middle class in this country exists at all because of the unions is laughable, there arent enough unionists to even make a dent in the population of the middle class to being with, but furthermore it is the free market that produces the middle class.

The wage analysis has everything to do with it! This is the crux of the issue! healthcare costs have skyrocketed and the working people's ability to earn an effective wage to keep up with this inflation has been supressed sucessfully for thirty years. And now that the chickens have come to roost, the unions are being blamed again: which is based on no substantial facts but is rather pursued through a tired old rhetoric. I inserted the wage differences to verify my point. Wages in this country are ghastly compared to the cost of living.

Inefficency starts at the top. Policy, product and manufacturing design also start at the top. The collective barganing ellement provides a stop-gap that keeps the worker out of (as much as possilble) the drives of quotas and internal competition that has an affect on morale. Formewr union members however make some of the best lower and midle management personnel that company can have.

I really wont bother with this part, because I think your reasoning is just utterly flawed. Your insistence that the problem is management sounds to me like sour grapes, and pure justification. You really sound like a union organizer.

Note this statement by yourself:

This statement clearly shows a prejudice on your paret that is born of serious case of lack of experience and ignorance.

When you have to call someone ignorant to make your case, you have lost.

1: Organizing efforts are always met by the company targetting those campaigning for representation. The companies hire law firms that specialize in breaking up organizing efforts through fear intimidation and outright lying up to the point: I was an organizer for many many years and know exactly how it goes for workers.

And there we have it, you are an organizer...perhaps it is you who have the problem of objectivity in this debate.

2: Saturn employees - any group of employees - can decertify (that's what it's called. It happens, that's why there's a name for it) anytimne they want. They take their grievances to th union and if those grievancces aren't satisfied then - the union's out: tehe employees don't even need a reason!

I have talked to employees there who said if they were to dare and do anyting like that the union would stip them of their pension, and generally blackball them. Or worse, as the unions are usually in bed with the mafia.

Do you now how muchg that sunds like "all the happy workers of the Proletariat march off to work at another day for the glorius company".

It is simply an observation of truth.

There is no autonomy. Team leaders and all that stuff is a ruse designed to increase competetive quotas: I know, I've been there and that company still closed.

I seriously question that amount juxtaposed against every other manufacturing cost by any other company, and I would like to see where you get that information.

I can tell you that many Japanese carrs a re entirely more expensive than American cars adn have been for quite some time: in my memory, teh cange came about 1977 'er so whjen Datsun introduced the 240Z - the first $10,000 Japanese comact to hit the market: certainly not based on their labor costs, and so it is today.

You have not pointed out one burden: your using catch phrase.

There is debate; it's going on all over the country right now. I'm sorry but your opinions on collective bargaining are just opinions, and they are based on a very poor understanding and working knowledge about collective bargaining.

You have still not specified an answer to my question about your assertion that unions have ruined the American auto industry.

Yes I have, but you are a true believer and will never see the light, that is clear to me..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode