Gov. Sarah Palin

Biden got it wrong! I thought he avoided sticking his foot in his mouth during the dabate, but I was wrong. Palin was closer to reality. Check out this article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html I did a serch of several websites covering the US Constitution just to check. You should do the same.

Right on Carl,
I had the constitution looking and trying to keep up. I'm glad that you did too!
 
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but unions had a place once but they don't anymore.

There are two reasons that American manufacturing can't compete anymore that is the "top" and the "bottom". The highest paid executives make far too much money and the workers at the bottom in unionized jobs in many instances make too much money.

Take for instance the Freightliner plant just down the road from my house. It is one of the few unionized plants in this area. Floor sweepers and cleaners are making $20 an hour in that place. How in the world is an American business going to survive when that type of thing is common?

I would even go as far as saying that Unions are yet another cog in this economy mess we're in. Excess is the reason it has gotten this way. I believe in fair pay but not excessive pay. Americans have been lulled into falsely believing that our way of life is guaranteed to us instead of working for it fairly at a fair price. You can't even find Americans willing to do half of the hard labor jobs out there and we have Mexicans coming in to fill those roles. When American workers won't work for a reasonable price the jobs are lost in one way or another.

I'm definitely not someone who buys American just because it is made in America. I take pride in giving my money to companies who have the best value (low cost + features + reliability) in the product line and model year I am purchasing in. Just because I bought one item in one model year doesn't make it best the next model year. Blind brand loyalty hurts everyone and encourages a company to rest on its laurels. Unfortunately, a unionized work force puts many American companies at a disadvantage because of the overly high pay rates of many, but not all, of the job roles.
 
Yes Mr Grey,you work in the service industry that does not have to be globally competitive.That is the big difference,to hell for those that compete globally.I am just worried about me MATE!!
Oh while your at it Mr Grey,try eating Chinese food.No I do not have to worry about China!!!
Kym.
 
Biden got it wrong! I thought he avoided sticking his foot in his mouth during the dabate, but I was wrong. Palin was closer to reality. Check out this article http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433314,00.html I did a serch of several websites covering the US Constitution just to check. You should do the same.

This sort of misses the point. A slip up of the Article number (Article I vs. Article II) isn't the meat of the matter; it's a question of whether you can be in two branches at once. The big brouhaha that inspired the question came up when Cheney:

(1) claimed that he was exempt from Presidential executive orders (about reporting how security information was handled by the executive branch; remember the "outing" of CIA's Valerie Plame?) because he was actually part of the legislative branch (Article I) when he sat at the Senate, while

(2) had earlier relied upon "executive privilege" to refuse to release information (over things such as the workings of his energy panel) as part of the executive branch (Article II) because that's the Article where his job is defined.

Nobody had seriously suggested that it was even possible to be in both branches before Cheney came along; he claimed to be in whichever branch did not have to reveal any information at the moment. His security information came into his possession through his role in the executive offices but he refused to report as ordered by the President because his job was "legislative". That's what all the fuss was about, not the Article number, or whether he runs any particular session of the Senate. There's a Pro Tem to run the Senate whenever he isn't around, which is an awful lot.

Here's some background:
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/22/nation/na-cheney22
 
Unions have their place...and I was once belonged to Local 44, as a union carpenter. I had worked non-union for 10 years and was able to advance by using my head and trying my best to out do my competitors. There was an incentive for doing so....more money! Then just before I went full time on my own in my stairshop, I joined the union and all of a sudden different rules. There was no incentive for advancement as everyone was paid the same. They all felt as long as they worked ....and they did work very hard...that all skill levels should be paid the same. I didnt like it and left the union and went on my own.

Then...fast forward to Bruce Artwicks 22,000 foot home that the union built. I was now...as in the unions smart alek words...a lowly "scab" . The union hired this scab to build the $136,000 stairway in this megamansion.

At breaktime while working on this stairway...I had to stomach my former "union brothers" commenting on why they hired a "scab" to build this stairway. I could not remain silent....I raised my hand....and said "I have a question. There are over 320 union carpenters in local 44....and hows come not one requested to work on this stairway? I dont think anyone of you has a right to complain of this "SCAB" building this stairway. I just filled the void that was needed"

That went over like a lead balloon....

I will remain non-union and make it on my own merit.

Stan
 
I remember when I was about 7 years old(1956) my dad came home midday. I ask him why, and he said that the union had walked off the job over the firing of one of the workers. It seemed he had been caught sleeping on the job down one of the worked out tunnels. This was the second time hw had been caught.
I asked my dad, "shouldn't he have been?". He agreed, but the union was over zealous. The union was the United Mine Workers. They were the only union to go on strike during world war II. Sometimes unions get cariried away, sometimes they are needed to check ruthless management. They need to remember what they were working for, not who they are working for.
 
Oh please, you expose yourself assuming I am that stupid. It's not about the Article number. It's about the powers allowed to the VP, specifically as President of the Senate. If you missed that, maybe you should stay away from the keyboard.
 
LuftCarl:
Hold on - no, I'm not suggesting that you are stupid, and I had no such thought in mind. I certainly didn't intend any insult or disrespect to you.

But there are a few points that I think are important here that the Fox News analysis seems to miss, and that don't support the view of a multi-branch office for the VP. First, the VP's role as President of the Senate is pretty narrow.

1) The VP cannot introduce legislation.
2) The VP cannot debate legislation.
3) The VP cannot serve on any committees.
4) The VP cannot hold any party office in the Senate (majority leader, etc.)
5) The VP cannot speak to the issues or add statements to the record.
6) The VP cannot propose amendments to the Senate rules.
7) The VP cannot submit motions to be voted on by the Senators.
6) The VP cannot even vote on legislation, unless there's a rare tie that needs breaking.

With those limitations, it's a huge stretch to call the VP a legislator. In essence, the VP is even less substantively involved than the moderator at the debates. He has a small role in running the proceedings, but in the VP's case, he doesn't even get to choose the questions that get debated. All he does (when he's there) is apply the rules, while the substance is completely out of his reach. His typical comments are limited to such things as "The chair recognizes the Senator from Maryland", or "The ayes have it". If Biden didn't mention the power of the VP to make those statements, I don't think he missed much. The "powers" of the VP in the Senate are pretty slim.
That's why V.P. "Cactus Jack" Garner said the vice presidency was not worth a bucket of warm piss.

The Cheney approach to vice-presidency, which Governor Palin seemed to me to be supporting, is self-contradictory. Cheney thinks the VP can put on his executive hat and ask for orders from the Chief Executive, but if it's convenient for the administration, he can then put on his legislative hat and refuse to follow those same orders. It's hard to believe that such an idea was what the Founders had in mind, and nobody before Cheney had ever suggested such a thing since the Constitution was first ratified.

As I re-read my prior post, it does directly address the powers of the VP, and I'll stay by my keyboard, thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
Oh please, you expose yourself assuming I am that stupid. It's not about the Article number. It's about the powers allowed to the VP, specifically as President of the Senate. If you missed that, maybe you should stay away from the keyboard.

But I think he's dead on -- even the Senate website makes no mention of the President of the Senate having any powers or duties beyond casting a tie-breaking vote :

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm
 
A few years ago, a produce packaging factory near where I lived was involved with a brouhaha that resulted in unionization. Apparently the company had set up and rigidly enforced rules that production line workers could only use the restroom during their regularly scheduled breaks, said schedules being set up by the management. The breaks were set so far apart that some workers couldn't wait, and eventually about half the workers were wearing "Depends" and wetting themselves rather than risk being fired. Eventually, after public outcry, they unionized, and the union fixed those policies. That, in my opinion, is a neccesary Union.

On the other hand, I was in a union for a few years, and was unable to advance to better jobs, in spite of being handpicked, because I did not have enough seniority. The union rated seniority over every other qualification. That union was a drag on the comapny's ability to operate. As noted, floor sweepers should not get $20.00/hr, you should not be required to hire three people to do a one-person job, and holding the "Stop" & "Slow" signs on a road construction job should be a minimum-wage job.
 
That's a pretty even handed view of the unionization question Kurt. I work in an auto plant and we have had to get signed bathroom passes in the recent past in our plant.

I find it impossible to understand the anger at someone getting $20 an hour to sweep floors when the leaders of the investment banks are being paid hundreds of billions of dollars and have utterly trashed the companies and lost trillions of dollars of shareholder money, pension fund money, bond holder money. I feel comfortable in saying the floor sweeper could not have done a worse job than they, and will suffer more since he may lose his job in the economic collapse they caused but won't be entitled to a golden parachute for their miserable failure. And Still, he's the poster child for being overpaid....
 
That's a pretty even handed view of the unionization question Kurt. I work in an auto plant and we have had to get signed bathroom passes in the recent past in our plant.

I find it impossible to understand the anger at someone getting $20 an hour to sweep floors when the leaders of the investment banks are being paid hundreds of billions of dollars and have utterly trashed the companies and lost trillions of dollars of shareholder money, pension fund money, bond holder money. I feel comfortable in saying the floor sweeper could not have done a worse job than they, and will suffer more since he may lose his job in the economic collapse they caused but won't be entitled to a golden parachute for their miserable failure. And Still, he's the poster child for being overpaid....

I'm sitting here writing this at Wrens as a spurt of rain is moving through!!!

John, Notice I said the top and the bottom are both overpaid. A few overpaid top executives and thousands of overpaid union workers who are expecting exorbitant pay for jobs that don't require any skill or education equal American made products that cost too much to be competitive in even our own country even AFTER protectionist laws even the playing field.

Now don't get me wrong. I have never and will never complain about any SKILLED position getting paid what it is worth whether that is a trade skill or a skill that requires college education or simply one that no else can or will perform well.

It is the expectation that JUST BECAUSE it is a labor union controlled job that ANYONE can perform it should be payed a wage that is unfair. If they want the better paid job, then go learn a skill or get your GED and give the floor sweeper job to someone willing to work for what the job is worth (minimum wage).

Or better yet, force all companies with a minimum wage job opening to register it with the government. Then anyone on welfare for more than 90 who doesn't have a disability would be paired with the minimum wage job and have their benefits terminated.
 
Check a few websites. VPs in the early years of this country did quite a lot as President of the Senate. In fact one of them wrote the rules. Check it out.
 
Stan, respectfully disagree

Stan, respectfully disagree

Stan, your subjective negativity on the carpenters union has to be addressed. On any construction project your going to, (union/ nonunion) maybe have a jerk or two, has nothing to do with the union.
In most states if you contract out for a job, you have to be a licensed contractor, you are not a hourly employee who would be considered a scab on a union project.
I have built hundreds of stairs as a union carpenter, even circular concrete site built stairs, custom built wood circular stairs would be built in a shop,usually by a sub contractor, youself, not by a carpenter on the job site, union or otherwise.
 
Unions were formed originally to provide safe and decent conditions for people who were being mercilessly exploited. Think children lashed to the loom and locked sweat shops with no fires escapes.

Much like equal opportunity laws, they have gone too far and in some cases out lived their relevancy.

I was management in a Union shop for 6 years when I ran the DoD Media Center in Ca. The IBEW was the union. I tell you unless I caught someone having sex with a farm animal I couldnt get them fired! And even then it would have to have had a paper trail leading up to the event and be a homely animal too boot!

Ever wonder why a mediocre studio film can cost $100 million+ dollars? Teamsters is one reason. These are guys who when they were formed ran "teams" of horses.... now they drive a semi tolocation, sit all day eating donuts and playing cards, and then drive the truck back at the end of the day. You better have the right number of Teamsters and trucks and rotations on their shift.... or you are shut down.

Many years ago when he was the Production Manager for the indy production of Piranha my friend had a bus show up on set filled with Teamsters... with bats. He was told that he was being shut down.... after negotiating a contribution to the pension health and welfare fund, the palookas got back on the bus.

We have some of the most coddled and spoiled workers in the world in the US.... and it has contributed mightily to not being competitive and led to outsourcing.

Ever look at the union rules for the Rail Road workers!?? They were established at the turn of the century... the last century! They get paid by the rail mile and enjoy some of the most outrageous perks and protections you can imagine! But every year it seems we read about our broken and broke rail system....

Protect people, yes! Price ourselves out of being viable.... no.
 
We have very little in the way of protectionism for products coming into this country compared to what we face in other countries. The paychecks of neither the top nor the bottom compare to the laws of the respective countries as barriers to trade. If we want to sell something in China we have to make it there and they have to own half of the plant. They have free reign to steal all patent and manufacturing technology since they don't recognize our patents. We have little hope of competing head to head with them regardless of pay, since the real barrier is trade law. If we had followed our own law not to grant most favored trade status to communist countries we'd be in a better place now.

Our trade with Europe is far more fair and our pay for all but the top executives is comparable. Our top executives make ridiculous pay compared to anyone in any country on earth.
 
It's easy to point at a few incidents in union shops and say they are the root of all problems, but most of your incidents were long ago, since most unions were crumbling when Reagan broke the ATC 20 odd years ago. Virtually all automotive suppliers wages have been cut in half or less and many benefits removed in the last 5-6 years. The Steelmakers are virtually gone, Machinists are cut by 2/3 or more in the Midwest in the last 10 years. Railroad workers have been cut by more than 90% not because of pay, but because of efficiency.
Some Carpenter called Stan a scab and hurt his feelings, but realistically, what percentage of Carpenters even have a job right now? 50% ? 20% ?
The only union with clout I can think of is the teachers union.
 
Management Style

Management Style

Come on Robert, making blanket statements about unions is wrong. Carpenters in the Northern Cal. area had no coffee breaks in there contract till a couple years ago. it was up to management to allow for breaks. We finally got a contract with a break written in, two ten minute a day.
As to job security, there is none, in the construction trade if a employer wants to get rid of you, he just lays you off, no he can't fire you without cause, most states have labor laws against unlawfull discharge. In construction you have to hold up your end of a job, you will get fired for cause.

It's apparent what side your on, management, not for the worker. As a construction superintendent I've seen it all, it depends on management style that reflects on worker attitudes.
 
LuftCarl:
Hold on - no, I'm not suggesting that you are stupid, and I had no such thought in mind. I certainly didn't intend any insult or disrespect to you.

But there are a few points that I think are important here that the Fox News analysis seems to miss, and that don't support the view of a multi-branch office for the VP. First, the VP's role as President of the Senate is pretty narrow.

1) The VP cannot introduce legislation.
2) The VP cannot debate legislation.
3) The VP cannot serve on any committees.
4) The VP cannot hold any party office in the Senate (majority leader, etc.)
5) The VP cannot speak to the issues or add statements to the record.
6) The VP cannot propose amendments to the Senate rules.
7) The VP cannot submit motions to be voted on by the Senators.
6) The VP cannot even vote on legislation, unless there's a rare tie that needs breaking.

With those limitations, it's a huge stretch to call the VP a legislator. In essence, the VP is even less substantively involved that the moderator at the debates. He has a small role in running the proceedings, but in the VP's case, he doesn't even get to choose the questions that get debated. All he does (when he's there) is apply the rules, while the substance is completely out of his reach. His typical comments are limited to such things as "The chair recognizes the Senator from Maryland", or "The ayes have it". If Biden didn't mention the power of the VP to make those statements, I don't think he missed much. The "powers" of the VP in the Senate are pretty slim.
That's why V.P. "Cactus Jack" Garner said the vice presidency was not worth a bucket of warm piss.

The Cheney approach to vice-presidency, which Governor Palin seemed to me to be supporting, is self-contradictory. Cheney thinks the VP can put on his executive hat and ask for orders from the Chief Executive, but if it's convenient for the administration, he can then put on his legislative hat and refuse to follow those same orders. It's hard to believe that such an idea was what the Founders had in mind, and nobody before Cheney had ever suggested such a thing since the Constitution was first ratified.

As I re-read my prior post, it does directly address the powers of the VP, and I'll stay by my keyboard, thank you very much.


Here is some infomation on the role of the VP.

http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/presidents/officevp_histvp
http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Students?content_spotlight/presidents/officevp_rolesvp

Leon
(kc0iv)
 
So you see, the VP has a great deal of influence on legislation in the Senate much like the Speaker in the House of Representatives, if they choose to do so.

Again, Biden was wrong......by a long shot!
 
Top