Romney’s 9-Point Plan to Annihilate Unions

What Mitt Romney and the GOP would like to do to labor.

By Jeremy Gantz

Except for one quick swipe at teachers unions by Mitt Romney on Monday, neither of the major-party presidential candidates—nor their running mates—mentioned workers’ rights, collective bargaining or organized labor during any of the four presidential-campaign debates. Usually, [RETURN TO ARTICLE]

  • Reader Comments

     Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

    There is a tenth point in his plan.  Protect Independent Contractor Agreements.  They can’t even initiate unionizing.  They purposely never talk about independent contractors because it is a secret weapon. WAKE UP PEOPLE This is my mission before I croke.

    Posted by Steve Chervenka on Oct 24, 2012 at 7:14 PM

    Hooray for Mitt!!

    Posted by Mike Mangan on Oct 25, 2012 at 6:39 AM

    Public unions are as bad as the tea party in terms of obstruction of progress.  Private unions - not so much.  They have to compete to stay alive.  I am all for getting rid of unions.

    Posted by K20D50SLICE on Oct 25, 2012 at 6:44 AM

    i hope he does.  because union, a laudable idea in 1904, are nothing more than organized thuggery in 2012.  witness public sector workers in any circumstance (and yes, there are always exceptions to a rule), and you’ll witness the surly, arrogant, and essentially lazy behavior of a person who feels that they are untouchable.  that their job is an entitlement, and the work required is an annoyance en route to the pension, overtime, health benefits that really should just be given to them.  if unions behaved responsibly, with some regard for the rest of us, we wouldn’t hold them in such contempt.  you are the same as the crooks on wall street.  self-interested, without regard for anyone or anything else.

    Posted by subframer on Oct 25, 2012 at 6:52 AM

    No longer an undecided voter——- Go Mitt!

    Posted by JDanielBoone on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:05 AM

    “change federal law to “guarantee” the secret ballot in every union certification election. In other words, employers would not have the option of recognizing a union via “card check,” as they currently can.”

    What a stupid comment. Find me one employer that will recognize a union based on card check.  What Obama would do if he could is to force unionization based on card check. So 26 out of 50 employees sign the card, you can’t respond and are totally screwed.

    Posted by Eric on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:05 AM

    This is a silly scare article. If you are a coal miner, or an oil worker, or a Teamster, then Romney is your man. He will limit the EPA and open up our own domestic energy exploration, mining, drilling and production. He will let us and Canada build the Keystone XL pipeline. He will cut the income tax rate by 20% so workers have more take home pay. Romney won’t slash defense budgets which should be good news for the IAMAW, of which my father belonged.

    Posted by EdWill on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:09 AM

    Unions today are an anachronism. They add no value to the economy, but rather misallocate scare resources so businesses and government pay more for service than the market, without the union finger on he scale would bear. The country, the economy, and over time union members will be better off when unions die their overdue death.

    Posted by Dmr1 on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:16 AM

    Best news I’ve seen all day.

    Posted by Bam-sucks on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:16 AM

    Labor unions are like guns, the time you need them most is when someone is trying to take them away. Lets not forget what Hitlers first action was- banning labor unions.

    Posted by Kenneth Myers on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:18 AM

    Under Mitt Romney, forever-corrupt, greed-driven, Socialist UNIONS will be in Political Syberia for 8 YEARS, as they should be!
    So-called, Public Employee UNIONS must be attacked and exposed for what they are—bankrupting our Cities, Counties, and States, while destroying “by the people” Government in those entities.  Crush them!

    Posted by Logic Driven on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:30 AM

    Wherever there is trouble in America you can find a union at the heart of it.

    So getting rid of unions is a good thing…...

    Posted by WhatMightBe on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:35 AM

    Don’t tell me - Bush did it too…..

    Posted by WhatMightBe on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:36 AM

    I don’t think it’s actually Romney’s plan to destroy unions… but I’m down with it.

    Posted by ounceoflogic on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:36 AM

    Oh thank God that someone will handle what is bankrupting this nation—Union overreach.

    Posted by GaelanClark on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:42 AM

    About time!  Unions have pushed companies overseas.  Just take a purview of new cars and trucks, for example.  Will someone please explain to me why a new 1 ton truck, NOT fully loaded costs $50,000?  Steel - anyone priced it recently?  All the rest of the folks (non-union) have the Department of Labor to take care of our grievances.  It’s about time they do also.  Granted, unions were essential in our past, but not now.  All they do now is drive prices unnecessarily up, and hold not only companies, but also consumers hostages.  If someone doesn’t do their job, fire ‘em.  And if you really want to know what’s going on, pick up a transcript from the NLRB and see how these unions are costing jobs, causing companies to shutdown, etc.  Then you truly know how unions work…they’re thugs.

    Posted by 7cedars on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:44 AM

    If he were to, it would only be something that should have been done 20 years ago!!

    Posted by Jim Sedberry on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:50 AM

    Thanks for bringing these facts to my attention.  I was not aware Romney’s platform contained so many ideas to curb the power of public employee unions.  He’s definitely got my vote.

    Posted by MisterH on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:50 AM

    The Davis Bacon Law adds tremendous expense to every government building project. In addition many thousands of government employees are required to maintain the database and enforce the law and affected contractors must dedicate millions of man hours nationally attempting to be compliant. The law does not allow merit shop contractors to get full credit for legitiamate employee benefits that are deliverd in a modern manner rather than thru union trust funds.

    Posted by BikeHawk on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:52 AM

    If I thought that was Romney’s agenda, I would find a way to vote for him twice. Unions have lost much of their purpose over the last 40 years and now function as leftist propaganda machines. Without the Progressive Socialists propping them up, they would go the way of the dinosaur. Good riddance.

    Posted by Liberal Soup N Crackers on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:55 AM

    Even FDR opposed the current push of public unionization in the US. The private sector unions have already lost the war.

    Posted by Liberal Soup N Crackers on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:57 AM

    one can only hope!!!!! Go Mitt

    Posted by Steve Fitzpatrick on Oct 25, 2012 at 7:57 AM

    This is the best news I have read this week.  I think I will send the Republicans another campaign contribution!

    Posted by TheRocketSurgeon on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:00 AM

    Unions stop
    progress. Period. The City of Chicago just got raped by a bunch of lazy, incompetent
    thugs known as the teachers union. All unions need to go….oh and dont forget,
    we cant afford their pensions….


    Posted by F Unions on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:07 AM

    All of these “workers rights” rely on taking rights from someone else.  Why can’t Boeing choose where to put their next plant?  Why should someone be forced to join a union if they don’t want to?  Why should that same worker have to have money collected from his paycheck and contributed to political campaigns (s)he may or may not support.  Why should taxpayers be forced to only use union workers for any project? 

    I think fair people understand that if someone wants to start or join a union, they should be able to.  They should also be able to contribute to political candidates of their choice.  Forcing others to do the same is not fair.  Nobody should have to participate in someone else’s scheme.

    Posted by shecky on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:09 AM

    if this really is his plan I’ll vote for him twice

    Posted by Stephen Christopher on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:11 AM

    Hitler again?

    Posted by ounceoflogic on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:12 AM

    Unions are doing a pretty good job at self annihilation. They do not need Romney’s help. In the private sector they are destroying the companies they work for, and in the public they help causing massive pension debt until the governments can’t even borrow the money to pay them. Romney does not have to do a thing.

    Posted by HenryC on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:12 AM

    The tea party supports letting the voters decide, I can’t say the same about unions.

    Posted by HenryC on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:14 AM

    I can’t wait for America to return to the days before we had Unions. But then again, history is a liberal art.

    Posted by NotThereYet on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:16 AM

    I don’t think Mitt has an agenda to remove unions, but I think it’s likely he won’t favor union workers over non-union workers and that he won’t sue companies who create jobs in right to work states.

    Of course if he did remove unions that would be great!

    Posted by tv22 on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:18 AM

    Excellent news! I liked Romney before. Now I love him.

    Posted by Francis Arsenic on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:23 AM


    Posted by SmallBiz0wner on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:37 AM

    It’s a shame that you have to have a President do what responsible people should have been doing long ago.

    I have no issues with Private labor unions and the deals they negotiate with companies.  I have real issues with Public taxpayer funded unions.

    You all should.

    Posted by phydeaux70 on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:42 AM

    It sounds to me like Romney’s plan is full of common sense.  Perhaps it is time for Labor leaders to rethink their mission and methods so they can help the American worker adapt to the changing global economy. 

    The private sector unions need to separate from the public sector as taxpayers become more and more frustrated with government labor politics.  Unions can still be relevant and useful, but the days of them wielding massive political power are fading. 

    A quantum shift is taking place.  Can Big Labor adapt?

    Posted by Dean Wormer on Oct 25, 2012 at 8:55 AM

    The unions were necessary during the years of my grandfather and father…but not today!

    They used to work for the laborers that they represented…now they only work for themselves and their puppetmasters…the Democratzi ‘loons’!

    Today…they are nothing but the muscle of the ‘loons’ who do their dirty work!

    If you still belong to one…why?

    Here is a video of the Michigan SEIU…forcing in home healthcare workers…into giving them dues when they don’t belong to their union.  The Republican Governor of Michigan and the legislature…has since passed a law to make that illegal and it now is.  However…they are now trying to change the Constitution to do their dirty work…and put it on the ballot in Michigan to supercede this new bill!…

    And did you know…that as a Union member you have a right to get back your union dues if they are being used for political reasons…especially if you don’t agree with where they are going?

    Republican Saul Anuzis (a former member of the Teamsters) announced the launch of a new website specifically designed to give union members assistance in getting refunds for the portion of their dues used on politics.  It is not “anti-union,” it is a site with one purpose—to help union members who do NOT want their dues money used on politics, regardless of party.

    And lastly to fight back and get back your freedoms and rights…make your State a ‘right to work’ State so that you have a choice!


    Posted by Eileen_for_Freedom_Liberty on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:09 AM

    Wasn’t this list of Romney Admin actions supposed to be negative?

    Posted by Steven Hill on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:10 AM

    You people who’d like to see unions go the way of the dodo, LOL, you are evidently NOT students of American history, are you? “Organized thuggery”? LOL!!! And what exactly do you think CORPORATE AMERICA is, hmmm? Wealthy and powerful Corporate America sticks it to ALL Americans each and every day, I guess this is ok with you?
    Let me say that I’ve never been in a labor union in my life. Ever. Yet I recognize their importance and the need for them to exist. As unions have diminished in this country, you have seen the rise of extremely wealthy and powerful corporate entities who fill politicians’ coffers, who then pass laws allowing these corporate entities to do whatever they like (liiiike, firing American employees because they made a livable wage and moving their jobs to China or India where a worker can be paid the equivalent of at most, a few dollars a day, thus increasing profits for these corporate entities by stratospheric amounts). This is OK with all of you? Would YOU like to make a few dollars a day here in America? Think that’s a livable wage? When a home that’s NOT a leaky shack in a crack neighborhood costs well over $100K? When rents for a halfway decent apartment START at $800 a month? Think that couple of bucks a day will qualify you for a mortgage or a rental agreement? Well, your corporate friends couldn’t care less whether it does or doesn’t. THEY just want to make billions in profits, and they do….at the expense of AMERICA.
    Maybe it’s time for you people to google the term “THE GILDED AGE” and do some research on what it was like to live in an America where powerful corporate bosses held American workers AND their families by the cojones, and then ask yourself if you wish to GO BACK to that era. Because by spitting on union labor, you are expressing your wish to do JUST THAT.

    Posted by Linda Leigh on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:14 AM

    Let’s also not forget the Union strikes at the aircraft plants in LA when we were trying to defeat Hitler.

    Posted by Steven Hill on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:15 AM

    Bravo Mitt!

    Posted by sentry1 on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:24 AM

    Amen…and the Tea Party ain’t all republican.

    Posted by sentry1 on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:25 AM

    All pension funds should immediately be folded into the Social Security fund!

    Posted by sentry1 on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:27 AM

    Linda, I can’t speak for all of “you people”, but, to me, if people want to organize in a private business environment, that’s fine.  The problem comes from forcing people to participate.  That means that workers who don’t want to join or have part of their salaries taken should be allowed to opt out.  Government unions, however, should not be allowed to exist at all.  That makes taxpayers (who make less than the gov’t workers) AND workers who wish to opt out real victims.  It’s all about taking rights from one group and handing them to another that is annoying about unions.

    Posted by Shecky on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:27 AM

    You just laid out many great reasons to vote for Romney in addition to all the other great reasons to do so anyway.  This is a very clear path to economic strength and vitality that is badly needed.  Sadly I am a state government union employee in a non right to work state.

    Posted by UnionCoach on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:28 AM

    Must admit that unions cause their own demise.A good wage is one thing,greed is quite another.No wonder i now confuse union members with brown shirts!

    Posted by 95worlds on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:30 AM

    You know nothing of unions.You are silly.

    Posted by Kevin O'connor on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:37 AM

    More reasons to vote for Mitt!

    Posted by MAredneck on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:38 AM

    of course you will.

    Posted by Kevin O'connor on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:41 AM

    It’s really sad that this comment is in the minority. It amazes me how people continue to vote AGAINST their best interests. Please explain to me how a movement that is already declining in membership and now only represents 12% of this country is responsible for all (or the cast majority) of its woes. People please wake up and learn to think for yourselves.
    Then again, part of me feels like saying f—- it. Give the people what they want. So when the Sh-t hits the fan they’ll all finally get it…

    Posted by Fed up with idiots on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:42 AM


    Posted by Kevin O'connor on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:43 AM

    There is a massive difference between private sector unions, who battle it out with management, and public sector unions, who use taxpayer dollars to appoint their own management.

    Posted by jeffmagic on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    Annihilate is too strong a word.  Make it so they don’t take advantage of those they are supposed to support, I could go for that.  Go Romney.

    Posted by Phillip Horton on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM

    We are a union family.  We will support Obama! 

    Posted by queenobe on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:46 AM

    Wow. The columnist writes as though eliminating unions is a bad thing. Is this a comedy piece?

    What’s bankrupting America’s future? Govt sector unions.
    Where are they most powerful? Blue states
    What states are not having kids? Blue states - check the demographics. ONLY NM, NV are at flat fertility and only HI is above. All other Blue states are in net population decline
    Net? Blue states have unions bankrupting a future that blue voters are not populating to help pay their bills.

    Unions are the enemy of our future - a future blue voters don’t believe in enough even to populate.


    Posted by Alexander Scipio on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:47 AM

    What?!!? Romney wants to eliminate Unions? GREAT! One more reason to vote for him!
    Have you ever worked in a company with a Union? They kill productivity. They kill growth. They kill company culture. They kill profits.

    Posted by John Croshaw on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:51 AM

    This article makes me want to vote for Romney even more:  A key way to move America forward is to undermine the unions!  They are the central source of inefficiency in our society, protecting the worst workers and punishing the best.  The worst of the worst, of course, are the teachers’ unions—any discussion of education reform that does *not* involve breaking the teachers’ unions is doomed to fail.

    The right to association should include the right not to be forced to join an organization with which you do not believe and directly acts contrary to your (and society’s) interests.

    Posted by professorheiss on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:52 AM

    Actually, subframer is correct.  You, sir, know nothing of unions.  They need to be broken in order to get this country back on its feet.

    Posted by professorheiss on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:53 AM

    “Ban teachers unions outright from donating to political campaigns. (He’s fine with corporations donating as much as they’d like, however.)”

    Money donated by unions is money that came from members of that union.  Since union membership is often compulsory, it’s certainly true that not every union member agrees with the intent of their union’s donation, thus the donation reflects the views of the union’s management, in conflict with the views of those from whom the money came in the first place.  It’s certainly true that a union member, having been forced to pay dues, some of which is then donated by the union to a particular candidate, might then also offer a personal donation to the opposing candidate, thus wasting both his involuntary, dues-derived, union donation and his personal donation.

    Money donated by corporations, on the other hand, comes entirely from corporate profits and not at the expense of the individual employees of the corporation.  No individual is forced to contribute to a corporate donation.

    Unions have long outlived their usefulness and now serve only as vehicles of extortion and as protection of the incompetent.

    Posted by Henry Miller on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:55 AM

    The author uses the word “unions” to cover public and private sector unions. These are not the same thing at all. FDR was against public sector unions for the obvious reason that they would bargain with the tax payers. But the taxpayers may have no representation at the bargaining table if the elected officials are there thanks to the public unions. A perfect example of this was in NJ when during a public union protest, Gov Corzine grabbed the bullhorn and started chanting along with the union members. As he is the equivalent of management in a private company, that means the tax payer is out of luck.

    Posted by Taxpayer on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:58 AM

    Hey, unions need to go. I’m 60 years old, and in my lifetime, all they’ve done is pick the pockets of their constituents, raise the cost of labor to an unconscionable level,  and used their stolen money to keep industry (and the workers), not to mention government entities enslaved to them, and in many cases (GM, Wisconsin, California, et al), caused many entities to teeter on economic destruction. They outlived their effective usefulness by the time I was born. We need to get their filthy, greasy, slimy hands off everything. Am I saying they are down right evil? Damn betcha I am!!!!!!!!

    Posted by MisterEd13 on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:58 AM

    But anyone who has ever dealt with the probably unionised public employees at the driver’s license office knows all they need to know about union members.

    Posted by Henry Miller on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:59 AM

    It is far better that Boeing moves their jobs to South Carolina than to Mexico!

    Posted by JJ on Oct 25, 2012 at 9:59 AM

    Linda you re right, but someone MUST be to blame for our countries troubles and just like bullies who pick on the weak - the unions with their shrinking memberships - are a great candidate.  The wealthy are writing the stories now and most of americans are reading them - they are eating up the bs like nonliterary people read “Fifty Shades of Grey”  - it’s poorly written but it gets them excited and that’s all that matters.

    Posted by Eve on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM

    SHRUG, Atlas!  SHRUG!

    Posted by Kwizzer on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM

    ublic Unions are just the Mob Collection agency for the Democrat Party.

    One would have to be brain dead not to recognize the inherent corruption in Democrat politicians rewarding unions with tax payers money in return for votes and money!

    In fact, the Unions and their bought Politicians have been so greedy & corrupt they are bankrupting this Nation!

    Posted by Bill lowe on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    You should take another look at private sector unions. THEY bankrupted GM, and THEY received the spoils of the “bailout”, and THEY will singlehandedly bankrupt it again, even without Obama’s help, since he won’t be around past January.

    Posted by MisterEd13 on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:05 AM

    First, shouldn’t you explain what benefit unions have to everyone? 

    Higher costs to produce?  NOPE. 

    Smart, go getters???  NOPE. 

    Any town where unions strike ruins the local economy. 

    Non-union shops can just fire a slacker without all the threats, violence and drama.

    Union members have a percentage of their wages taken by union thugs who waste it on POLITICAL INFLUENCE.  Usually toward the socialist/liberals.  All you have to do is listen to union bosses threatening others with violence to realize what slow witted slacks and idiots unions take as members.  WHO NEEDS THEM???

    Posted by Mark Lindsey on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:08 AM

    But if unions are annihilated, how will the TSA ever perform its vital duties?  Who will make passengers late, rifle their bags, steal their stuff and handle their junk?

    Posted by Kwizzer on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

    Thanks for the reply.

    But I must disagree.  GM bankrupted GM. They are the ones that signed the agreements.  That doesn’t mean that it would be easy to do, but in the end, if the company isn’t profitable they shouldn’t be signing agreements with workers they can’t afford.

    All things considered equal I think unions have had their effective date passed in America and are no longer needed.  But in this case GM is their worst enemy.  we know the unions are greedy. :-)

    Posted by phydeaux70 on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:09 AM

    you can opt out. anyone can!  if you don’t want to be in a union, quit.

    Posted by cms on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:10 AM

    Go Obama

    Posted by Chad798 on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:13 AM

    The Democrat party is owned by the public unions!  Instead of public employees existing to serve citizens, citizens now exist to serve the unions with ever increasing taxes to serve their out sized salaries and golden retirement. The Democrat party and their Masters the Public unions are the world,s largest criminal organization!

    Posted by Bill lowe on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:16 AM

    Public employee unions aren’t unions. They’re PACs. (And paid for by money going directly from the taxpayers to the unions.)

    Posted by indipete on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:18 AM

    Why? Because the bulk of that remaining 12% are comprised of public sector workers. 

    Public sector unions wield a corrupting political influence to elect their own bosses, with whom they negotiate unreasonable wage and benefit contracts at the expense of the taxpayers.  Look at every state or municipality with a serious debt/deficit problem and you’ll likely find a union pension problem. 

    The taxpayers are fighting back against the public sector unions - and we will win.  It’s a shame that private sector unions when going down as collateral damage, but when you go to sleep with dogs…

    Posted by Dean Wormer on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:23 AM

    Stimulus and Bailouts.

    Where did all that money go?

    It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions—including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country.

    It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).

    All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and golden pensions that are bankrupting America.

    The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful.

    The ends justify the means.

    Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama)

    Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.

    With the acts outlined above, Comrade Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a large and fast growing multitude of welfare leeches living off welfare and other people money, and a invading horde of Uneducated parasites and their supporters come here for the free medical, schooling, food stamps and a whole host of other goodies they get both legally and illegally paid by broke American citizens and a bankrupt government:

    This a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and creating a vast dependent class of Leeches and Parasites living off the blood and sweat of working American and installing the Democrat party as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

    Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme.

    Posted by Bill lowe on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:25 AM

    sounds like a good plan by romney, thanks for bringing it up!

    Posted by flyer on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:27 AM

    So Romney is going to let workers keep more of their money and eliminate all the Union Bosses fat cat salaries.  A great article, definitely voting for Romney!

    Posted by Blue Collar Worker on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:30 AM

    A beautiful thing…. A union free America… One can only hope…

    Posted by A Smarter Man on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:32 AM

    Sounds good to me!  If Mitt succeeds in crushing the extortionist public sector unions he will have done America a great service. Now it may be sour grapes on my part but as a life long PRIVATE sector union man I could only salivate at the pay and bennies afforded to the public sector union members.  I just hope that he will support private sector unions as well as the lib/progressives have the public sector unions.

    Posted by pete guerrieri on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:33 AM

    Annihilate? Nice word choice except your title should read:

    “How Union Greed, Union Corruption and Union Politics have Annihilated Unions”

    Really, doesn’t that sound better and make more sense?

    Posted by sdbatboy on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:36 AM

    just another really good reason to vote Romney Ryan!!!!!!

    Posted by georgechapogas on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:37 AM

    Public sector unions are bankrupting municipalities across the country, while simultaneously destroying our educational system.  Let’s hope Mitt can get rid of them all.  Go Mitt!

    Posted by Doug1s on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:38 AM

    Most of these anti-union comments are sadly delusional. Unions make up barely 12% of the working population. As unions have shrunk so have our wages, and benefits. Facts matter, not rants.  At one time in the US unions led the way with providing defined benefits pensions, which allowed older workers to live out the lives in dignity. (Good luck on Williard’s plan to privatize Social Security. Just hope you 401K isn’t needed after stock marker crash.)  In Massachusetts Home Care workers saw their wages rise from $8 an hour to $12.48 after they unionized. Now tell me that they don’t deserve better wages as they work with the elderly and disabled. And the work is a lot harder than many jobs. The only thing workers have is the ability to work together to improve their lives.  Perhaps if the anti-union folks get their wish and unions are smashed like they were in Chile in the 70’s you will see a world that is neither just nor decent. It was not unions who brought down our economy in 2008. It was the folks just like Mr. Romney and Bain Capital. Unfettered corporate rule will not be pretty sight.

    Posted by tdean on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

    oooooh… scary, scary ... very scary ....
    The time has long past for your BS scare tactics. Get a life.

    Posted by Terry Headley on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:39 AM

    Yes please. I work around a lot of unions and they really are a burden. They punish the productive members by forcing pay to be comissurate with experience only and prevent so much work from getting accomplished. I’m not allowed to plug in my computer, move a desk, or even hook up a phone because those are union jobs and I would get a grievence filed against me if I did (this would cost me my job). So if I have to change offices, I cannot work effectively for three days while I wait for the union to do work my six year old daughter could do.
    There are over 3,000 employees in the area I work and many of them are quickly reaching retirement age, while there is a derth of workers that will be around after the retirement wave. We recently have had to go through massive layoffs because of budget shortfalls and you know who all got laid off? All of the young workers, while the union was negotiating raises for everyone else. This means that there will be more layoffs in the order of seniority so that the senior members can line their pockers before they retire while they put the younger people out of work. In about five years, there may be no workers left with any experience as all of the senior people will be retired and everyone who had work experience that was laid off and found new jobs elsewhere. It’s basically a plan to kill off any productivity and ensure failure for a couple of years.
    Additionally, there have been many examples of workers who do not even put forth a minimum effort or actually create issues while they work. They keep many people from doing their job and have created poor work environments. When management tries to reconcile these problems, the union protects the workers who are creating the problem. This does not help the collective good of the union, it just makes it harder for everyone and that does not happen just in one place but many places. This is why there needs to be union reform. They were necessary to protect the workers and their rights but it appears that they have over stepped their bounds and have become a negative force. They need to go back to helping workers, not helping the select few.

    Posted by Average_Casey on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:40 AM

    I completely agree.  Private sector unions have their place, and are still relevant, but public sector unions are totally out of control.

    If a private sector union demands more from an employer than they can pay, they either refuse to renegotiate the contract, or hire new workers.  If the employer already offered reasonable wages and working conditions, he’ll be able to find plenty of new non-union employees and he will continue to thrive.  If the employer’s wages and working conditions are actually bad, then he won’t fine any new workers willing to work for him, and he goes out of business.

    If a public sector union demands more from the government than they could give, politicians sign it ANYWAY, and just make sure the financial bombshell detonates after they are out of office.

    Public sector unions need to be outlawed.

    Posted by Adam on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM

    Ditto.  Public-employee unions are a metastasizing cancer in the body politic, and it is most gratifying to realize that Romney intends to excise the tumors.

    Posted by kenpuck on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:43 AM

    Wonderful news

    Posted by Unions past their due date on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:44 AM

    Home care workers got a 56% raise on the backs of the sick, elderly and infirm.  Thank you for showing us clearly just how unions operate.

    Posted by Kwizzer on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:45 AM

    Proof that the education for union people is far lower than non-union folks.

    Posted by Mark Lindsey on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:52 AM

    Private sector unions also cost you more.  UNIONS are for losers who otherwise wouldn’t be hired.

    Posted by Mark Lindsey on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:53 AM

    Public employee unions are fine so long as they do not have collective bargaining rights.

    FDR recognized that, today’s political clowns do not, or else they are just too busy raping the taxpayers to care.

    Posted by Lance Sjogren on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM

    You keep forgetting those who created the companies and TOOK THE RISKS, by putting up private money to start a company.  UNION THUGS don’t have those risks, but put the assets of others at risk.  Union types usually don’t understand how business works.

    Posted by Mark Lindsey on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:56 AM

    The OBAMAFONE woman was a SEIU union member being paid to protest Romney, not actually producing anything.

    Posted by Mark Lindsey on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM

    You say that AFSCME’s membership has been cut in half since the Wisconsin reforms, maybe that is because members are tired of being forced to pay for a union that does little to represent them and they would rather keep their money.

    What is wrong with any of this. Liberals say they are for choice, what about the choice to work free of a union. What about the choice to own and run a business free of labor interference.

    If a worker feels their employer is treating them unfairly, they need to leave, quit whatever. No one is trapped, this is not the 1800’s.

    Posted by gacapstone on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:58 AM

    “... employers would not have the option of recognizing a union via “card check,” as they currently can.”

    Good to see Romney is balancing taking options away from workers with taking them away from owners. Sounds fair to me.

    That’s true unless - and I hesitate to question your fine and objective article by suggesting this - your phraseology is transparently Orwellian bullshit?

    Posted by whoisitthen on Oct 25, 2012 at 10:59 AM

    These sounds like some good ideas to me - hopefully Romney is successful.  I live in a RtW state and we do just fine without paying protection money to union goons.

    Posted by gestapoid on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:04 AM

    We can only hope.

    Posted by worknmal on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:04 AM

    End ALL public unions, period. Yes, big changes requires, looking up and forward and rolling on the throttle!

    Posted by Jason Dotson on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:09 AM

    Very well said Subframer !

    Posted by Jason Dotson on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:11 AM

    What this author, and pretty much all liberal shills of his ilk, utterly FAIL to point out is the difference between PUBLIC and PRIVATE unions. Private unions, though horribly and corruptly led in this day and age, have a legitimate role in the US economy. However, PUBLIC unions are a completely corrupt scheme designed to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of union officials and politicians. The entire concept of public unions is inherently corrupt as Franklin Delano Roosevelt noted over 80 years ago. You cannot have a system where unions can give money and time to elect the very politicians with whom they will negotiate their salaries and benefits, using TAXPAYER money! Even politicians that have been bought and paid for in the past with union donations (i.e. taxpayer money) are starting to realize that the cycle of robbing the taxpayers to fund “public servants” that already have a monopoly position cannot continue. See Rahm Emmanuel. Public unions need to be abolished OR, at the very least, public trustees (private sector, professional negotiators) need to replace politicians at the bargaining table. As far as unions in general, how about instead of spending millions of dollars buying off corrupt poiticians, you spend at least half of this budget on TRAINING your members to actually do a better job and actually EARN your pay increases and benefits? How about agreeing to actually be measured in output and quality like every person in the private sector? How about firing the bottom 10-15% of performers every year like happens in the private sector instead of designing elaborate and lengthy processes to protect worthless and lazy workers (i.e. rubber rooms for teachers and ridiculously lax “disability” rules for police and firemen)? If unions want respect from the people who pay their salaries, then they need to EARN it by being accountable and responsible for their performance. Use excellence and performance, rather than political corruption and extortion to win better salaries and benefits. If a union worker can be easily replaced by someone off the street with little loss of production, they SHOULD be worried about their jobs.

    Posted by MildlyAmused on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:13 AM

    Remember the union wages also support the non-union wages by the Davis-Bacon act for fair wages. Take out the Union then not only they lose there wages, but so do the non-union workers. That way labor and public workers are paid like in china so the big business man can further increase his earnings. Will the cost of living go down? No. Profits are to important for large corporations to care about the general public. No unions will equal a lower standard of living for a lot of people including the non-union work force. After all, who’s fighting for the non-union wages? Don’t work for less to make a stand? No. they would import people from other countries to do work for less just to save a buck.

    Posted by Daniel Leach on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM

    In addition, money coming from public sector union dues comes from the taxpayer.  Basically taxpayers are funding the campaigns of union approved candidates.

    Posted by Bill Keilitz on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:17 AM

    This is the first of a 9-point plan to destroy unions that I’ve heard of, but from your lips to God’s ears. The people who constantly whine and complain about “outsourcing” are the same people who push for increased unionization, increased pay and benefits (untethered to productivity), higher business taxes and increased regulations. Then they wonder why their golden geese pack up and leave. The real reason they push so hard for unionization is to lock up Dem votes and extort campaign contributions that go 100% Dem whether their members are or not. Unions have as much a place in 2012 as horses and bayonets.

    Posted by steve simmons on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:21 AM

    Federal,  State and Local government has hit the break point… big to support…...and has now become its own special interest… feeds now to just exist….never mind actually doing anything useful…....the parasite has now grown to large for the host…...

    There are only two outcomes….the host shakes off the parasite…...or they both die…..simple as that. Taking more from the host like Obama and the Unions wants isn’t the answer…....

    Liberals never want to down size…....we are dying…...we are being consumed by government…...and it has become so large that those riding on our backs are clinging harder and harder…..refusing to get off…..

    We either make the decision now…..or the decision will be forced on us later….when the currency collapses and the government collapses…......

    My guess is most of us would rather make the choices now…...if you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem…...and we have to stop listening to those who are paid by tax dollars.

    Posted by Bill lowe on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:24 AM

    I would like for people to remember from history class how long it took to recover form the great depression. Americans are so caught up in instant gratification, some things especially if you want it done right takes a little extra time. And by the way for those who oppose unions think about the declaration of independence, was this not not people coming together in a union to declare freedom from wealthy tyranny and that’s rights then came the bill of rights. Funny how this is basic principal of unions!

    Posted by beaston on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:25 AM

    The problem with your theory is that people who live in RtW states with a minimal union presence still make good wages and salaries.

    Posted by gestapoid on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM

    “First: Since the anti-union law went into effect in Wisconsin, AFSCME’s membership has since fallen by more than 50 percent in the state.”

    So, once public employees have the option to join the union, half of them quit.  What does this say about public employee unions?

    Posted by Jim Breed on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:30 AM


    Posted by nomobo on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:31 AM

    The unions are are tool of the progressive/democratic party period.
    Their symbiotic relationship is corrupt, unconstitutional, and illegal if you or I behaved the same way.
    Progressivism is the disease infecting our Republic.
    Progressivism = Totalitarianism

    Posted by kitman3 on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:33 AM

    Thank you for highlighting these points.  I like Romney even more.  I think unions provide an important check on exploitation of workers, but they too often seem to work for their own interests instead of the workers’.  Public sector unions are contrary to the public interest.  How can anyone oppose a secret ballot process for unionization?  How can anyone support compulsory dues deductions from paychecks.  The NLRB’s intrusion into Boeing’s investment decisions was a grotesque violation of private property rights.  It’s just extortion.

    Posted by Ben A on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:33 AM

    “Right-to-work” is about simple liberty. You should be able to work wherever you want, without having union dues extorted from you. Government workers should not be unionized, period. They have no profits to be shared with a private sector business. The Boeing example is a perfect illustration of union corruption. Unions can strike, etc, that’s their power. Businesses can relocate to avoid unions, that’s their power. That’s the proper balance.

    Posted by Pronghorn on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:36 AM

    You are misled. What you REALLY mean is “strong-armed into signing”. Take the UAW away, and the employees would still enjoy fair pay and good working conditions. Unions represent an archaic industry model that disappeared before I was born (in 1952). Why are US Honda, Kia, Toyota, and Hyundai plants and products thriving? In large part because they are in right-to-work states, and don’t have to deal with those thieves known as unions. BTW, their employees are VERY productive, which means, by definition, they are happy. Unhappy people are not consistently productive. If Obama had wanted GM to be #1, he would have stayed out of their way, and taken his pork barrel union with him, but that’s not how cronyism works. He didn’t save GM, just the union, temporarily. I guees he’d blame the next GM BK on Bush.

    Posted by MisterEd13 on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM

    I’m a Libertarian and I don’t believe in coercion.  Unions coerce both their members (to join in the first place) and employers to become a “union shop”

    There is nothing benign about unions and they do not speak for me.

    Posted by Milton Friedman Fan on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:38 AM

    Unions are cancerous relics of the past and need to be destroyed, all unions.
    Glad that Mitt has the stones to take them on and kill them off.
    I plan on voting for Romney at least 2-3 times!

    Posted by Yaz8 on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

    Public Unions are very high welfare for people that are either to Lazy, to corrupt or to Dumb to get a job in the private sector!

    Posted by Bill lowe on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM

    This is just silly. You concentrate on one part of the puzzle - the SMALLEST part.

    “At one time….” Fine. I’ll go with that, private sector unions once had a rationale. Now that nearly all of that is codifed in law; they no longer do. Government-sector unions, though? Never have had a rationale and even FDR, patron saint of progressives, was against them They simply launder taxpayer money to Democrats, forcing those who build companies and create jobs donate to the campaigns of those who would destroy jobs and freedom: DEMOCRATS. Government-sector unions are just corrupt money-launderers for the DNC.

    “The only thing workers have is the ability to work together to improve their lives.” OK. If this were the case, explain why only 7% of the private sector (you know, people working for a living, not shuffling government paper) beloong to a union, and why half of those in AFSCME in WI quit the union as soon as they had the CHOICE. BTW - Isn’t the Dem party all about “CHOICE”? Who is it working to improve lives? Those men and women starting and building companies and creating jobs - and they sure aren’t in unions. Unions are the biggest enemy of job creation. Why do you tink most jobs have migrated to right-to-work states? And please explain why, in America, we need laws to give a man the right to work?

    But the biggest issues are these: Government union solid-gold pensions and being paid more than those paying their salaries. Here in CA if you’re in a government union you get to retire after 30 years at 90% salary. What does that mean in real life? It means that when you start being a cop or a fireman, you get 90% of your inflated salary (based on the last couple of years and overburdened by overtime) starting at 51, assuming you began work at 21. That means we are funding two entire police groups, two entire firefighting organizations, two entire prison guard communities.. one working from age 21-51, one retired from age 51-80.

    Meanwhile those of us paying this rediculous freight are paying to raise OUR families…. and theirs… are paying for our kids’ college.. .and theirs…

    And, no, I don’t give a rat’s butt that they put their lives in danger. They CHOSE that profession. I put my life in danger (more danger) every day on the freeway - look at the statistics.. andyet I have to pay for 30 years of gone-fishin for these slackers.

    And are they “slackers”? You bet. I’m in tech. IBM-AT&T-IBM-Disney-Sony-Sun. But I also spent a year of my career as a tech headhunter. You know who wants to hire government workers? No one. Why? THey are to odumb to make it in the private sector, feel entitled to long breaks and short workdays, have no self-starter ability. NO ONE in the private sector wants to hire government-secotr workers. NO ONE. They are lazy, entitled and incompetent. If they were any good when they got out of school they’d have been hired by the private sector to begin with.

    Unions - the enemy of freedom, liberty and a wealthy future.

    Posted by Alexander Scipio on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:51 AM

    We should be so lucky. Unions took a turn into a very dark place after WWII. Once the worker safety and similar goals had been accomplished, there was nothing more to legitimately fight for.

    The UAW almost singlehandedly destroyed our ability to compete in the global market, much less at home. Public sector unions have created crushing burdens on State governments. Private unions drove labor costs in manufacturing so high that jobs were forced overseas.

    Posted by Andylit on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM

    AFL-CIO, collectively organizing themselves out of a job since 1955!
    (much longer than that separately)

    Posted by sosueme001 on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:54 AM

    No. Wrong lesson from the Declaration. It was a declaration of freedom from tyranny… not a Declaration to change their masters from King George to Trumka, Meany, Hoffa and their ilk. It was not a Declaration making the worker subservient to a master called a “union boss.” It was not a Declaration saying men couldn’t pursue life liberty and happiness unloess they joined a union. It was a Declaration of INDEPENDENCE, not of DEPENDENCE on a collectivism.

    Posted by Alexander Scipio on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:56 AM

    Here is a simple 3 step plan to reign in unions.

    1. Require re-certification every 5 years. Most unions today do not have a single living member who voted to create the union.

    2. Mandatory secret ballot for formation and recertification.

    3. Make employer collection of dues through payroll VOLUNTARY.

    Posted by Andylit on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:57 AM

    The Democratic Party’s goal is not prosperity, the goal is long term crisis which invites governmental action. Democrats understand full well that governmental action does not solve problems, it exacerbates problems. So more governmental action is called for. And it goes round and round, with more people on the government payroll, since Democrats understand that governmental workers will vote for their own personal benefit, no matter that the country as a whole suffers.

    Democrats also know that they need to extend the boundaries of the entities that are in crisis. San Bernardino failing? Make it a county wide problem - extend the governing boundaries. Of course there is no reason to do that in California because, as noted in one article, the public unions effectively control the state. The people of California now exist solely to serve those working for government, since Democrats have no incentive to do anything other than to serve the interests of the unions.

    Posted by Bill lowe on Oct 25, 2012 at 11:59 AM

    Live Better / Dump Unions

    Posted by Jazz King on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:05 PM

    great post ....too funny…burst out laughing at my desk…

    Posted by Hot Dogs on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:10 PM

    The Democrat party is owned by the public unions! Instead of public employees existing to serve citizens, citizens now exist to serve the unions.  Paying ever increasing taxes to serve their out sized salaries and golden retirement.

    The combination of the Democrat party and their Pay Masters, the Public unions are the world,s largest criminal organization!

    Posted by Bill lowe on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:11 PM

    Typical GOP response. I guess if I was a well trained elephant I would do as my trainer said for a peanut! Do me a favor and make a comment on a subject with an opinion that doesn’t sound like you just heard it on FOX news! By the way maybe the Romney circus is stopping by your town soon, go catch the show!
    Sent via the HTC Vivid™, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

    ——- Reply message——-

    Posted by beaston on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:23 PM

    Shouldn’t everyone had a right to work?
    Why would governments, or any other employers, deduct money from their employees paychecks to pay fees to any organization those employees choose to belong to?

    Posted by moderate Guy on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:29 PM

    Save America.  Vote for Romney / Ryan!

    Posted by johnnydavis1 on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:36 PM

    Unions have annihilated themselves. See foot. Point gun at foot. Pull trigger. Bam. Foot gone. Get with the 21st Century or die unions.

    Posted by Darrell Vollmer on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:40 PM

    Looks to me that most Americans do not care much for unions based on the comments here.

    Posted by Darrell Vollmer on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    Public sector unions need more than a friggin’ haircut.  I’m sick and tired of paying for their bloated pensions.  My sister’s best friend just retired from the California DMV and she’s getting 75% of the salary she earned in the last 5 years of her tenure and 100% medical benefits with no co-pay or out of pocket expenses for her and her dependents.  Also, my mother-in-law is a retired teacher and the bennies are even more egregious.  The private sector sinks or swims, whilst those on the government doles are completely protected and “bailed out.”  Be afraid public sector unions, be very afraid!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Ricky Neal on Oct 25, 2012 at 12:41 PM

    Great article filled with excellent Romney ideas did not know he had so many. Ganz way to fire up Romney base and move undecideds to Mitt as well. Not your intention for sure but that is why you are a DA. Keep up the fine journalism loser.

    Posted by I luv trumpka on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:02 PM

    Blogging is great, casting a vote is better.
    Believe in America,
    It’s our only hope for change.

    Posted by level headed on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:02 PM


    Posted by Sherrie Morgan on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:03 PM

    Part of that Bill of Rights, as held by the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama, is the Freedom of Association.  The flip side of that right, which the unions are always willing to overlook, is the freedom from association.  One need only to look at what has happened to AFSCME membership in Wisconsin to understand why the unions are so fearful of right-to-work.  I, as a member of the UAW, have some serious problems with the blatant hypocrisy of not only the union I am coerced into being a member, but of all unions.

    Posted by Bill Keilitz on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:04 PM

    apparently you know nothing about how unions operate. You should educate yourself before you speak.

    Posted by Sherrie Morgan on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:05 PM

    All the people who feel that Unions are not worth anything should go educate themselves along with Romney. Plumbers and Pipefitters are one of the strongest, hardest working unions in the nation. They continuely educate themselves and update their workers. They are so worth the money they make.
    ” Union Born, Union Bred, When I Die, I am Union Dead. “

    Posted by Sherrie Morgan on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:08 PM

    Unions are their own worst enemy. Having Unions as monopolies by law will be their undoing. Unions should have to compete against other unions for the jobs they represent, that is the free enterprise system. Undo that one archaic law and unions would grow by leaps and bounds and would be welcome in most businesses. Wake up and smell the coffee, it’s a new day in America.

    Posted by life5678 on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:10 PM

    Want to destroy unions… give people a choice to join one… they lose 1/2 right then and there….
    The left wants “choice” to kill a baby ... joining a union… not so much

    Posted by Sean Cash on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:10 PM

    Great! This article has confirmed my belief that Romney is the best candidate! The unions are destroying this country!

    Posted by Jez Stratton on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:15 PM

    There are an awful lot of Chickens supporting Mitt “Col. Sanders
    ” Romney here.  Go ahead and kill the Unions and the workers they represent. You will find (if you are indeed a working person) that you just cut out the floor that supports you as you fall through the Middle Class.

    Posted by CWAmember on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:17 PM

    “Unions have pushed companies overseas.”  What?  You mean they are in league with Romney

    Posted by CWAmember on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:21 PM

    Absolutely.  Remember, the problems ones are **public employee** unions, a relatively recent development, that even FDR said should never happen. Unlike private unions, pub unions don’t negotiate w/ the payers of their salaries/benefits (i.e., the taxpayers) but w/ polititicians whose interest at best is to keep them happy and at worst is to get campaign controbutions from them.  A formula for the disaster cities/states now face.

    Posted by NMSoxfan on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:22 PM

    Enough w/ the vituperation.  Unions are the cancer of the country.  They are parasites too dumb not to destroy their hosts.

    Posted by NMSoxfan on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:24 PM

    Public Unions should not exist .... even the biggest original supporter so unions.

    “All Government employees should realize that the process of collective
    bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the
    public service.” FDR

    Collective bargaining works in PRIVATE businesses because management and employees are sitting across from each other and hammering out a deal that works for BOTH sides.

    PUBLIC unions don’t work because they lack that basic give and take.  Instead you have Unions doing back-deals with Politicians on how to spend your children’s and grand-children’s money.  No give and take ... just TAKE and TAKE.

    Posted by jmail147 on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:28 PM

    Wow, these are great ideas! I’m voting for Romney!

    Posted by Ohio Worker on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:39 PM

    This just convinced me too vote for Romney, union’s are outdated and pointless and serve only to take away America’s competitive edge. The teacher’s union is the worst of them, when you remove incentive only laziness is left, and that’s what the teacher’s union does when it protects teachers that are bad at there job and put little to no effort in. When your payed in tax payer money you should be accountable to the tax payer.

    Posted by A modern citizen on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM

    You never were. You were never going to vote for Obama.

    Posted by Therealestmc on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM

    Everyone can think what they want but how come with the decrease in unions everything is still overpriced? If you people think elimating unions will bring jobs back you are all fools. Corporate greed is why jobs are overseas because its not enough for a CEO to make 2 billion he needs to make 5 billion hey lets keep paying people like Alex Rodriguez 200 million and after half a game he pained into social security and is done paying. Man I can’t believe I’m alive to watch this country go to hell like this. God have mercy on us all.

    Posted by Totally screwed on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:47 PM

    It is no doubt that they are strong-armed.  But in the end, they allow it. That’s the only point I’m making. 

    We the people have virtually no say about public unions and I think that is wrong.  Our only choice is to elect a certain type of politician that will aim to reduce union power.  Heck for too many years, even the GOP was way too tolerant of the unions.

    Posted by phydeaux70 on Oct 25, 2012 at 1:49 PM
     Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >