1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Union workers - Guns & Voting

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by HKGuns, Mar 17, 2013.


Union / Non Union Members how do you cast your Ballot?

Poll closed Apr 16, 2013.
  1. I'm Union and I vote with the Union

    5 vote(s)
  2. I'm Union and I vote other issues

    15 vote(s)
  3. I'm Union and I vote the 2nd Amendment

    82 vote(s)
  4. I'm Union and I don't Vote

    0 vote(s)
  5. I'm Union and from now on I will vote the 2nd Amendment

    5 vote(s)
  6. I'm non Union and I vote other issues

    11 vote(s)
  7. I'm non Union and I vote the 2nd Amendment

    220 vote(s)
  8. I'm non Union and I don't Vote

    1 vote(s)
  9. I'm non Union and from now on I will vote the 2nd Amendment

    13 vote(s)
  10. I don't care to disclose any of the above

    9 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MikeS.

    MikeS. Well-Known Member

    I vote for who I want what I want. It's always pro 2A.
  2. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    What amazes me is the staunch hate most conservative middle class Americans have for unions. You would think they would support higher wages and insurance that doesn't go away should you change jobs nor require government funding. Real pensions vs. wall street vanishing funds. Companies negotiate prices all the time, but if a worker does it, All of a sudden it's the evil socialisms.
    Confusing to say the least.

    Unionized labor makes up roughly 12% of the workforce in the USA. If you want to blame the failures of industry on anyone, unions should be way down the list. 88% if the country works without representation and has stagnant wages and shrinking savings to show for it.

    I tend to be fairly anarchist in my ideal political ideology but since that isn't going to happen any time soon, I'll take the liberal agenda first. It may be corporatist as well but at least the democrats pretend to look out for the middle class. The republicans are almost blatant in their willingness to sell out the worker for campaign contributions.
  3. okiewita40

    okiewita40 Well-Known Member

    To me the union's are nothing but a waste of money. Waaaay to liberal when it comes to politics.

    Now there was a time and place for them in the past. They also did a lot of good for the workers back in the day. I just think those days are gone. I had a job once that was a union shop and had no choice. That is wrong in my book. All I ever heard was strike. But it never happened. I would have crossed the line in a heart beat to keep food on the table.

    For me union's of today are no different than the mob. They take as much as they can and don't give a thing back in return.
  4. BigBoreJay

    BigBoreJay Active Member

    Don't assume too much about union members. I am an IBEW member who, unlike most, realizes there are things which are more important than Dollar $igns. I am union for the benefits and the money, but I could easily go non-union and probably be much happier with less. I believe in smaller, less intrusive gov't., I oppose almost all of the left-wing agenda, and I support unrestricted RKBA.
  5. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Well-Known Member

  6. HKGuns

    HKGuns Well-Known Member

    I have no hate for the Unions or the good people in the Unions. What I truly hate and I think at least "some" of the hard working Union members would agree, is the Socialist nature of the Unions.

    Protect those who are not working hard, I have numerous examples of some, not all, Union workers drunk on the job being protected by the Unions. The Company literally cannot get rid of them. Meanwhile, the hard working Union members, picking up the slack of the slackers, are getting the exact same wage as those going out to lunch and coming back hammered.

    If the Unions were willing to shed the weak and pay the higher performing workers commensurate with their skills and hard work I would be fine with Unions.

    Sadly, that is not how Unions operate. I'm not necessarily speaking of Police or Fire Unions as I don't know that the problem exists to the extent in those Unions as it does elsewhere.

    But let's not turn this into a Union bashing thread.

    You just might be surprised that if you embraced pay for performance that you ended up getting more. Skilled labor is not easy to hire and retain and a lot of companies are frustrated with the Unions who protect the weak which serves to make the good employees unhappy. Most Companies would be more than willing to pay to retain your hard work and skills, regardless.
  7. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    I always hear about this sort of thing and I'm sure it does happen to some extent but I've also worked non-union jobs with people who get drunk or use some other drug on the clock as well. I don't know anyone who has gotten busted for any sort of drug or alcohol usage and been right back on the job.
    An example here in my city is in the convention and trade show business. Most of the guys moving the freight around for exhibits and the like are Teamsters.
    Now there are some crackhead teamsters out there and they do use on the job but they also don't seem to last very long. The guys driving the forklifts and running the lifts don't use because they know if anything happens, they go for an immediate drug test. No questions. No excuses. You get your slip from the labor desk and go right down to pee in a cup. If you don't, you lose your job and you get no more calls.
    Perhaps it is the economic downturn that spurred changes like this but even in my own union (IATSE Local 720) we don't engage in that sort of nonsense because we know there are 50 guys behind us on the list just waiting for my spot to open up. On tight knit house crews, people get drummed out if they can't be counted on because we know the house could probably hire non-union guys to come in for less money. They call the Stagehands because they know the work will be the best the industry has to offer.

    Quite frankly, the UAW is not every union and it is not 1975 anymore. Things have changed and most unions have changed along with it.
    Sure the job protection gets a little lopsided but I don't think you'll find too many business agents/labor reps willing to go to bat for some guy caught drunk on the job these days. I know that sort of thing does not happen in my local as a general rule. Standard operating procedure at the labor desk is that if anyone is caught intoxicated they get an immediate drug test form and are taken off the call list pending the results. We do not screw around with that.

    Even if that sort of thing happens on occasion which I'm sure it does, it is the exception rather than the rule and still does not outweigh the benefits unions provide. A stronger middle class is good for America regardless of where you sit on the political spectrum. A middle class family making a higher wage makes a stronger America. The unions may be left leaning but only because it pays them to do so. The NRA lobbies for gun rights and the unions lobby for labor rights. Lobbying gets things done politically and it is really just a matter of picking your poison.
  8. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Well-Known Member

    Anarchist political ideology, gun owner, and democrat voter? Does not compute.

    This. It's not the 1920's. We have federal labor laws and safety laws that protect workers from unnecessarily hazardous environments and working excessively without compensation.

    Non-union means that a company is free to treat employees as individuals, not a collective. They can reward the good ones, inspire the mediocre ones and can the bad ones. Unions, like socialism, create an environment of laziness and apathy. If you're gonna get the same pay as the next guy, why work harder or do a better job? Performance based pay rewards the good workers and punishes the bad ones, as it should be.
  9. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Well-Known Member

    Complete nonsense.

    Because if you don't work harder or better you will get replaced by another union member who does work harder. I'm always amazed by how people think it works and how far that is from reality.

    If there are only 500 union jobs available and 1000 union members trying to get those jobs - you better bring your A game if you want to stay employed.
  10. X-Rap

    X-Rap Well-Known Member

    That may have been true to some extent even more so in the last decade in which the unions have lost much in the private sector but the new union members work for the gov. Termination of teachers, postal and the others that make up the majority of collective bargaining is very hard.

    I would also submit that those who garner pay, retirement or entitlement from a gov entity probably have a biased vote that while it may not show up as a majority of members here, would in a poll of the man on the street.
  11. Resist Evil

    Resist Evil Well-Known Member

    I'm a union member. I chose to join. I carry the card, it doesn't carry me. I've used many firearms since I had fourteen years.

    Unionism is much more important than any single union. The ignorance about the history, causes and need for unionism yesterday, today and tomorrow in this thread is apparent. Union ignorance, sadly, seems no barrier to punching the Post button.

    My union is morally and intellectually incompetent in advising me as to how to spend my vote. It is barely relevant in my private relationship with an employer in my jurisdiction. It is not relevant at all as to how I choose to participate in public affairs.

    I vote for Liberty in every election. If there is any issue that translates into less taxes, less welfare, fewer free cell phones, less government intrusion into an individual's freedom, and a reduction of arms infringements, I'm likely to vote in support.

    As for whom I might vote, a favorite quotation: "I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible." Barry Goldwater
  12. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    It absolutely computes.
    The anarchist believes the individual is sovereign above all else. The state is a construct that ends up reducing the liberties of all involved. States are founded for various reasons with varying intentions but it always ends up reducing the individual and blunts his/her potential.

    The trouble is that in the USA, we aren't be permitted to leave the state and construct a new community with our own rules as decided democratically by those wishing to live in the community. You may get the occasional off-grid type community like The Mesa in New Mexico but you know that should anything serious occur, state authorities will step in.

    This is where my ideals must take a back seat to reality. I exercise as much freedom as I can without going to jail (because that would cost me my freedom) and I vote more towards the left because I believe that the right wing of this country has been sold a bill of goods that emphasizes corporate interests over individual interests. They believe wholeheartedly that trickle down economics works and if the business owners do well, the little man will too. It is a lovely theory that rarely achieves its goals because businesses aren't in business to pay their employees well and provide health care. They are in business to make money and anything else is a secondary consideration. Giving such power to corporate interests very seldom yields tangible benefits for the worker.

    The democrats aren't much better but the social programs and services they do push for, generally benefit the average American. Industries (especially insurance and medicine) hate the idea of a single payer system because it hampers their ability to set prices to levels that yield maximum profit. It has nothing to do with the market setting the price because a fair market does not exist for health care. The power is entirely vested in the service providers. It is a very unequal footing.
    Long story boring, I want the government to use its bulk to provide valuable services for the citizens who pay the taxes. A healthy, educated populace is far more valuable than a giant corporation.

    also note that when I say a single payer system, I am absolutely NOT referring to the corporate gimme that is the Affordable Care Act. There are a few redeeming qualities but the whole thing is little more than a giant subsidy to insurance corporations and the OK for hospitals to slap people with outrageous prices.
  13. Pilot

    Pilot Well-Known Member

    When was the last time a union supported a non-statist, conservative leaning candidate that supports the 2A?
  14. barnbwt

    barnbwt Well-Known Member

    Just make sure you donate as much or more to the pro-gun candidates/groups as that portion of your dues slated for their opposition. My dislike for modern unions (some, not all) is the anti-democratic nature in which they gather members' resources and dispense them as the leadership sees fit for whatever causes keep them in power--whether each dues-payer agrees with the cause or not.

    Collective bargaining is not the problem, the leadership structure is. Time and again, we see the loudest, most radical, and charismatic guys elevated (not at the low-levels, so much as the mid/upper-leadership levels), and once there, their job becomes how to gin up as much furor and political force from their members as possible. It keeps the group united, and keeps the honchos in command. Might even bring in some extra money on top of dues. It's not terribly different from the Crusades of old in this respect.

    I'm sure there is a small, locally-run union somewhere that isn't yet pandering to the highest reaches of power, and still represents the interests of the members. The massive, aglomerated ones are the monsters that have taken on a will of their own.

  15. Clean97GTI

    Clean97GTI Well-Known Member

    Sounds a lot like shareholders in a big corporation to me.
    Which is to be expected when this country encourages and promotes the growth of big corporate interests. The corporations have bought and paid for the Republicans in office. The unions, not wanting to be left behind, started buying Democrats.

    and here we are today. The middle class, hoping the scraps they leave us will be enough to feed our families.
  16. X-Rap

    X-Rap Well-Known Member

    I can't think of of a "workers paradise" that exists that isn't a parisite to capitalism. Certainly can't think of one that honors individual rights.
  17. rpchevy02

    rpchevy02 Active Member

    Make no mistake,just because you are a union member does not mean you don't support the 2nd amendment and gun owners rights,key word here being rights. You have a right to be union as much as you have 2nd amendment rights. Be careful of those who would strip you of your union rights,they are no better than the gun controllers,only a different agenda with much the same tactics
  18. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Well-Known Member

    What part of the constitution enumerates the right to unionize?

    Have you been paying attention for the last half century? The democrat platform is anathema to liberty. The modern progressive liberal democrat platform believes in the collective as a the primary, with individuals existing for the benefit of the collective, and being granted certain privileges as a reward for their contribution.

    There is a party that leans toward anarchy, with the recognition that there is an important role for limited government. This is the libertarian party, to which I belong.
  19. arizona_cards_11

    arizona_cards_11 Well-Known Member

    Non-Union and vote on other issues.

    I would never vote for someone that is pro gun-control......but I will certainly vote against someone who is 'pro gun-ownership' and fails in other areas.
  20. joeschmoe

    joeschmoe Well-Known Member

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page