wyohome
Member
I was union for 27 years, sent a great deal of money to the Dem PACs. They were the ones that shut down the woods to logging and my job was over.
He told me, "(ol' scratch) I wouldn't have voted for Obama if I had known he was going to make a play for our guns. I am truely shocked." I think many people thought the same thing.
Seems a lot of union members want to say the don't vote the "union way". Guess what, you are in a minority (if you're being truthful). For every member that doesn't vote the "union way" there are probably 10+ that do. On top of that, you are buying even more "union way" votes with your dues and PAC contributions.
I know a union firefighter, likes guns for self defense and hunting... pretty sure he votes Democrat.
I worked in a union shop for 28 days after a non union job of 21 years went away. I was shocked to see the lunch room turn into election HQ for the democratic party because there was a primary. Being handed bumper stickers and being told to put them on my truck infuriated me and I didn't do it.
Intersting but not a valid poll being the liberal union nuts are not visiting a gun site. Not all union folks are liberal nuts!! Its just that they would not be on this site
I don't even have to talk to a retired USN Chief to know how he votes.
What amazes me is the staunch hate most conservative middle class Americans have for unions.
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.but I could easily go non-union and probably be much happier with less.
Socialist?HKGuns said: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.
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
You just might be surprised that if you embraced pay for performance that you ended up getting more.
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?
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.
MachIVshooter said:Anarchist political ideology, gun owner, and Democrat voter? Does not compute.
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.When was the last time a union supported a non-statist, conservative leaning candidate that supports the 2A?
Sounds a lot like shareholders in a big corporation to me.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.
TCB