Third Party & Independents Archives

Lunchpails and Republicans

Their thinking for themselves. I know it is hard to believe but in Indiana republicans are thinking for themselves. Well at least some of them. It seems the 2010 elections served a purpose after all, showing the excesses of conservative control of government for what it is. And it seems the corporatist/fascist/uber conservatives should start to worry. Good I say it is long overdue.

The Lunch pail republicans of Indiana have decided that they can wrest themselves from the clutches of the Chamber of Commerce and still be republicans. They can have "their party their union and their guns." Mr. Fagen of the Lunchpail Repubs has earned himself an "attaboy" in my book. After watching the highlights of the last repub debate this comes as a pleasant surprise and hopefully catches on in other states with enough repubs to make it a national issue.

Now the ball is in the Dems court. They can sit back and do nothing or they can take a page from the Lunchpail Repubs playbook and start the effort to remove the corporatist/fascist/uber conservatives from their party as well.

Posted by j2t2 at January 17, 2012 11:48 AM
Comment #334660

So this is about nothing more than non-members not having to pay for representation they do not want?

Posted by: kctim at January 17, 2012 2:36 PM
Comment #334662

I think it is about more than that kctim. I think it is a realization, an epiphany, amongst certain republicans that the party has grown more extreme over the years. That corporate big wigs control their party. That class warfare against the middle class is being waged in their names.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 17, 2012 3:20 PM
Comment #334663

I’m pro-choice J2, I support the individual right to be union or not so I support right to work.

The website in your link says:
“The only difference between current law and what the Republican leadership is proposing is that they want non-members to pay nothing”

I took “only difference” to mean it was the same except for the unions wanting non-members to pay for something the non-members do not want.

Posted by: kctim at January 17, 2012 3:56 PM
Comment #334664

After winning many governorships, state legislatures, and retaking the House, the Republican party felt it had the power to begin phase two and complete the corporate takeover of the country.

In state after state, they began attacks on middle class workers while scapegoating the social programs and the poor as the causes of the middle class problems.

They tipped their hand, assuring themselves that Republican working class people would not see through the fog. Well, some of them have seen through the fog.

In state after state the Republican tactics have backfired and Republican governors and legislators are feeling the heat.

Republican workers have joined with Democrat workers to defy Kasich and the Republicans in Ohio. Republicans have joined with Democrats to produce more than a million signatures to recall Walker in Wisconsin. Nearly twice as many signatures were collected than needed and nearly half the voting age population signed it. Now we see working class Republicans choosing their own candidates to run against the corporate Republicans in Indiana.

The official Republican party stance on right to work is if you oppose it you are a socialist.

The Republican party is about to nominate the prefect corporate party poster boy, Romney. We should put a stop watch on him to see how fast he can run to the left after getting the nomination.

I agree that Democrats need to start replacing many of their politicians as well because I have doubts that this worker backlash will deter some of them from pigging out at the corporate lobbyist slop trough.

Posted by: jlw at January 17, 2012 4:38 PM
Comment #334665

kctim, the conservatives came into power in 2010 and instead of dealing with the real problems they went after unions for political reasons. This law is intended to further weaken unions in this country. I think unions need to be strengthened. So when I seen Mr. Fagen on the Rachael Maddow show I was stunned to hear what he was saying. To hear a republican say the party should support business and labor is something I haven’t heard before. A middle ground for republicans not known for compromising, a wee bit of sanity in the party perhaps.

jlw, I agree. Time to get both parties to throw the corporatist out.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 17, 2012 5:15 PM
Comment #334669

It depends on what the union does. I was a member of the longshoreman’s union. They protected good workers, but also protected the lazy and dishonest workers. The idea of equality of all members is a problem.

We also had horrible union rules. I was not allowed to change a light bulb - that task went to other unions. I was not allowed to sweep the floor for similar reasons.

IMO - On the plus side, unions get higher wages for their members, which is good. On the negative side, they interfere with necessary changes in the world place and seek to maintain outdated jobs for members.

I do have a problem with unions for public employees. They work for the taxpayers, not for some “predatory” business. Presumably the representatives of the people will have the best interests of the people at heart.

There is also the problem of incentives. In a private firm, management has incentive to keep costs low and if they fail to do that they go out of business. This sets some limits on the union demands, although what happened to the auto industry is not encouraging.

Government unions, however, do not have this constraint. Political managers actually have incentives to give away taxpayer money to organized interest groups, i.e. union workers. They have the capacity to use coercion (i.e tax) to pay for labor costs. Again it is not so much the salaries as the wasteful practices.

One of the union rules that is most pernicious is the idea of seniority. It sounds good, but it means the the longest lasting people can push around the young ones.

I have been at my job for 26 years. I think I know lots of things and try to keep up. But I can envision a time when I get tired or just lazy. I have seen many people “retire in place”. In a union shop, if there are any layoff, you are left with these sorts of guys.

We really need to develop some sort of flexible system, by which less productive, perhaps older workers, can “downshift.” This might also mean making less money. This might mean that a person’s lifetime earnings resemble a bell curve, with increasing earnings as skills and productivity increase. As some point it will be the top and then will/should go down.

Posted by: C&J at January 17, 2012 6:58 PM
Comment #334671

C&J The same can be said for corporations CEO’s and board members. Yet conservatives don’t seem to want to legislate them out of existence.

What strikes me about these Lunchpail repubs is they are going against the Chamber of Commerce and all that money to put different repub candidates up for office. Candidates not beholden to the CoC and the Koch Bros.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 17, 2012 7:14 PM
Comment #334672

These worker revolts and the scum of the earth OWS has Obama declaring himself super progressive man again and has Republican candidates talking about inequality while waging class warfare on Romney.

It is good to know that protests in the streets are still affective at raising awareness among the people. Now if they were all carrying one of David Remers VOID signs.

Posted by: jlw at January 17, 2012 7:22 PM
Comment #334674

jlw, Not to mention Michigan where they are protesting at the Governor’s house. Seems they are tired of having their cities taken over by the Governor.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 17, 2012 8:22 PM
Comment #334675


I don’t want to legislate unions out of existence. I want to make them voluntary (no corporation can force you to work for them) and I see no need of unions in public sector.

Federal unions do not have the right to collectively bargain.

Posted by: C&J at January 17, 2012 8:26 PM
Comment #334679

Years back my father worked for the TVA. I recall him saying he couldn’t take something like a roll of tape to his workers, had to call the teamsters or transportation guys, something like that. He fired several workers for frequently showing up on the job site somewhat intoxicated. But, the union turned on him and the TVA fired him at the peak of his career while in his early 50’s.

I worked for Western Electric for a about a year and they were unionized. Seemed there was a weekly ‘flower fund’ for somebody. I was making around $3/hr and discovered my supervisor, who had been working there about 10 years was making something like $3.50/hr. Bailed from there poste haste.

I like the idea of people looking out for themselves. But, one has to be willing to stay mobile, relocate to wherever when the need arises. Also, continuing education should be a part of any career trek.

If one plans to stick in at the local plant where the job requires you insert 13 screws per minute year after year then it is understandable you are going to need help from a union or something similar to enable you to do that, IMO

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 17, 2012 9:40 PM
Comment #334684
I want to make them voluntary (no corporation can force you to work for them) and I see no need of unions in public sector.

By the same token C&J you can always work for a non-union company. To have a partially unionized company in the construction trades doesn’t make sense. Why would you want to let those that don’t “volunteer” get a free ride?

The public sector is who needs them the most. Why else would these extremist governors want to get rid of them?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 17, 2012 10:41 PM
Comment #334697

The website says the only thing different is the part that says non-members do not have to pay for the union services they do not want. The unions need to reevaluate their SOP if they are weakened because they can no longer force everybody to pay them.

Doesn’t matter if Republican or Democrat, the objection to right to work laws is about nothing more than money. And you gotta love how groups claiming to be fighting for the rights of workers have to strip the rights of workers in order to remain relevent.

No sweat off my back though, I will never work union.

Posted by: kctim at January 18, 2012 9:52 AM
Comment #334700

kctim, yes it is about money which is why corporate America has tried so hard for so long to legislate unions out of existence.

What I found to be interesting about these guys is they are to the right of center politically yet understand the need for unions in this world. As we see here on this thread those on the right are staunch anti union Chamber of Commerce types , which is typical of the righties. These guys are breaking the mold. I give them credit for doing so.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 18, 2012 11:08 AM
Comment #334701

J2, I don’t really care about the business vs union feud. I care about individual rights and in a supposed free society, individuals should not be bullied and forced to pay for what they do not want.

I don’t understand why you seem so astonished that Republicans help make up union membership. Are you equally amazed that some Democrats actually believe in the 2nd Amendment and are members of the NRA and other rights groups?

What you claim to see as “staunch anti-union…” is nothing but partisan wordplay to scare up support. Most of the people you are falsely applying that label to don’t care if others want to be union, they care about their own individual right to choose whether they want to be union or not.
Unions fear this freedom because, as with social security and other government mandates, forced support is the only way they survive.

Posted by: kctim at January 18, 2012 11:56 AM
Comment #334702

kctim, I am not astonished that repubs help make up union membership. I am astonished that they actual acknowledge the CoC should not have complete obedience from all repubs.

As far as individual rights it seems to me that we have the same rights irregardless of unions. If you chose to work for a certain company and they are unionized you know that going in and are free to not accept the job. Many of your rights are curtailed when you take a job. Try telling everyone your boss is a POS and see how many rights you have. You freedom of speech is hindered, IMHO. Try carrying a concealed weapon to most jobsites or workplaces and see how fast your rights are curtailed.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 18, 2012 12:09 PM
Comment #334705

Come on J2. Republican union members protect their own pocketbooks just as Dem union members do, and Dems who believe in and respect the 2nd Amendment protect their rights just as Republicans do.

You are of course correct in that you can choose whether to work in a union shop or not, but the issue is whether you should be forced to pay that union if you are not a member?
I personally have no problem if a business bows down to union pressure and agrees all who work there will pay. But you and I both know this is probably due to businesses not caring if non union members pay union dues or not, so the union wants government to force non members to pay.
If a business that was unionized wanted to hire me for a non union position, not paying union dues and unwanted union services would be in my contract.
That is why the unions are so afraid of an individuals rights to choice.

Posted by: kctim at January 18, 2012 1:13 PM
Comment #334713

Inequality creates protest.

World wide inequality creates a pandemic.

It’s going to be a hot summer.

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2012 2:03 PM
Comment #334716

If inequality means being unequal, then why are unequal tax rates the so-called answer to fix inequality?

Posted by: kctim at January 18, 2012 2:21 PM
Comment #334719
You are of course correct in that you can choose whether to work in a union shop or not, but the issue is whether you should be forced to pay that union if you are not a member?

The issue for me, kctim, is the repubs standing up to leaders in their own party by saying you can support both labor and business.

As far as paying union dues for nonmembers are you referring to management paying dues? I would agree they shouldn’t but anyone that gains from the union representation should. The union is a group of people that united together can accomplish somethings they couldn’t when they are given no choice in their pay and benefits.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 18, 2012 2:46 PM
Comment #334721

I am referring to ANY nonmember who has freely chosen not to be a part of the union.
The union is a group of people that have chosen to unite together and any gains from their reps should be for them only. I do not need nor want their gains and should be able to be left alone to represent myself as I see best.

As I said, I have no problem with unions or people who think they need one. I just believe EVERYBODY should have a choice in whether they want to be a member or not. No more not allowing unions and no more union only shops.
Free choice for all. Equality for all.

Posted by: kctim at January 18, 2012 3:10 PM
Comment #334726

kctim, your choice is to work at a nonunion place, because your choice and the choice of others conflict. They chose to organize. Fortunately you have the choice to work at a non union shop when others in the work place choose to unionize.

It seems to me your alright with the company taking away your rights but not when the union limits your choices in the same place, why is that?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 18, 2012 4:47 PM
Comment #334728

Why can’t the others who choose to unionize, do so by finding a union shop to go and work in? Should we really be forcing people to belong or not belong to a union at any job site? Wouldn’t all rights be respected if we could be a part of a union or not, without fear of losing a job? Can’t union and non union members work side by side? Yes we can. I do it almost every day.

If the company wanted to force me to pay for something I did not want, I would have the same response to them as I do unions: employees have the right to freedom of choice without fear of retribution.

Posted by: kctim at January 18, 2012 5:36 PM
Comment #334729

kctim, I still think we are missing the bigger picture here. You may have specific issues with unions but how about those brave Lunchpail republicans in Indiana who are going against the CoC and the party leadership to the point of raising money to take their party back from the corporatist?

In general the constitution protects you from the government not from corporations. Those rules that do protect you are from the government agencies such as the EPA and Dept. of Labor. Once again use your 2nd amendment rights in the workplace and see if you work at a dictatorship or a democracy. You give up rights to work for a company.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 18, 2012 5:47 PM
Comment #334731

Half the assembly workers work out of the union shop and half out of the non union shop.

The union workers make $12.50 per hour plus benefits.

The non union workers make the minimum wage with no benefits.

Free choice and Equality for all? I don’t think so.

Right to work laws aren’t about worker choice and worker equality, they are about employer choice.

Do women choose to make less than their male counterparts?

Does anyone really believe that millions of workers would choose to make less than other workers doing the same work?

Millions of Chinese workers are working jobs that were formerly done by American workers. Guess what those Chinese workers want for doing those jobs that Americans used to do?

They are demanding better pay, benefits, shorter work weeks and longer breaks. They are demanding union representation that is not controlled by the Communist government and the CEOs of corporations.

Kctim, when we hear Republican politicians talking about inequality, are they being disingenuous? I believe they are.

Here is another disingenuous talking point for Republican
candidates, break up the to big to fail banks.

Gingrich: Obama supported the bank bailout, Romney supported the bank bailout. Guess what Newt? Bush wrote the bailout.

Not one Republican politician has introduced legislation that would break up these banks.

Senator Brown (D,Oh) has introduce legislation that would break up these banks into smaller entities over a period of time. Senator Brown has been elevated to #1 on the Republican Congressional hit list and they plan to spend millions, in mostly out of state money, in a massive effort to defeat him.

When people find out they are being played for fools, they don’t like it. It’s not just Democrats that are beginning to find this out.

When people say the country is on the wrong track, most are talking about the way things have been going for the last three decades, not the way things were going in the three decades previous to those.

People are starting to catch on to the fact that while Obama and the Democrats have stumbled along trying to improve the economy, catching hell from all sides, Republicans have done nothing but obstruct and corporations have refused to help because their profit margins wouldn’t be high enough.

Republicans took control of the House last January and this years Congress has been the least productive in the countries history, and it has happened at a time when the country has been struggling through one of it’s worse recessions, one that was primarily caused by Republican policies and greed with help from some self proclaimed liberals/progressives.

Posted by: jlw at January 18, 2012 5:54 PM
Comment #334733

They are doing what they think is best for the union, not workers, which is to be expected. I do not consider them ‘brave’ for doing what others do all the time. But then again, I do not believe a bunch of evil white guys intent on destroying the world are dictating that everybody on the right must think the same.

I freely choose to follow rules to work at a company just as I follow rules to go see a movie. I am not required to pay a company for representation I do not want nor am I required to buy a movie ticket to see a movie I do not choose to see.

Only government has the power to take away my rights and force me to do what I do not wish to do. That is why I do not fear corporations as the left does.

Posted by: kctim at January 18, 2012 6:04 PM
Comment #334738

And who do you think controls government kctim? These corporations you freely choose to follow.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 18, 2012 6:50 PM
Comment #334745

Righto j2t2. Bush brought his czars in and forbid the agency heads to make press. Then, there’s czar Imelt and GM moving more autobiz to China. Then, there is the super pacs outsizing your free speech with super bags full of free speech.

You would think that Mitt stashing cash in the Bahamas would do him in but we will have to wait and see if super pac free speech can deliver the ‘status quo’ candidate ‘one more time’.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 18, 2012 7:51 PM
Comment #334762

Ah J2, so close but yet so far.

Corps don’t control the government, the people do through our votes and we have allowed all these special interest groups like corps and unions to have the influence they now have.
People are now so dependent on government that as long as they get their ‘freebies,’ they no longer care if a corp gets a weak envio law passed or if the unions take away workers choice and right to work.
People are now so dependent on government pleasing them personally, that they now ask and beg government to rule by emotion, not rights.

The deciding factor on who we fear, government or corporations, all depends on what we fear of losing: our rights or our government ‘freebies.’

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2012 9:58 AM
Comment #334765
Corps don’t control the government, the people do through our votes and we have allowed all these special interest groups like corps and unions to have the influence they now have.

Ah kctim, so close in theory yet so far in practicality.

People are now so dependent on government that as long as they get their ‘freebies,’ they no longer care if a corp gets a weak envio law passed or if the unions take away workers choice and right to work.

You can use the people as scapegoats here kctim but IMHO it is the corporations and CoC who influence the people not the government.

BTW like most things conservative isn’t “right to work” an oxymoron? After all you can still work in a union shop. Perhaps it should be “right to work cheap” or right to work without representation” or something more reflective of what it is.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 19, 2012 10:42 AM
Comment #334769

J2, not scapegoats at all. Think Pavlov.
People sit around waiting for their government checks not the latest Wal-Mart circular.
People now expect government to give them ‘free’ healthcare, food and shelter. They do not expect Wal-Mart to give them anything for free.
Government dictates and mandates support. Wal-Mart must ASK for support.
Who is influencing and controlling the people is quite obvious.

HOW one chooses to work falls under ‘right to work,’ so it doesn’t really matter as long as it is YOU who gets to choose to work cheap, without representation or as part of a union.

It seems you are having a hard time grasping that I am NOT anti-union, I am pro-choice. I am perfectly fine with the lunch pails trying to keep their unfair advantage, I just disagree with them.

Posted by: kctim at January 19, 2012 11:43 AM
Comment #334772

To hear you tell it kctim all of us are sitting around collecting welfare checks. While it is a popular misconception it is still a misconception. No one really expects free government healthcare do they? We all know it is going to cost us one way or the other. Most of us don’t receive free food nor free shelter. Most of us don’t expect that from the government.

On the other hand Wal-Mart and others use every means possible to manipulate our minds through advertising and constant reinforcement of their messages. If you walk into a Wal-Mart they now have the great “hypnotizers” at the ends of many of the aisles telling you to buy this or that.

When it comes to laws breaking in their favor they employ many lobbyist to persuade our elected representatives to give them welfare or as it is called subsidies. In fact they have done this for so long and so often they have persuaded 5 members of the SCOTUS that money is free speech and corporations are just groups of people who should have individual liberties as a group, an entity. They have made elections pretty much a lesser of two evils with both evils on their side.

In fact kctim we sit here and argue about individual liberties when they have usurped many of our constitutional liberties with these lobbyist. I will post on this in the next few days. Meanwhile we can be sidetracked over union vs. non-union issues instead of the Lunchpail repubs of Indiana calling the CoC out for their abuses against the American people in the name of economic freedom.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 19, 2012 12:20 PM
Comment #334788

Actually the idea of government doing for the common people is rather new and unique. Government has always been the toy of wealth and power. All the more reason to deny the vote to as many as possible and purge the government of liberal workers.

Kctim, you hit a home run with Pavlov. His research epitomizes corporate advertising. The only thing better is subliminal.

Posted by: jlw at January 19, 2012 9:35 PM
Comment #334798

j2t2 thinks cops should be able to break into your house UNLAWFULLY!

He may think that because he is being told to think that.

Why would anyone listen to j2t2?

Anyone who discounts over 300 years of law should never be considered a reliable source of information.

Posted by: Weary Willie at January 20, 2012 3:31 AM
Comment #334804

Weary you mistake what I said. You felt I should shoot the cops breaking into my house. I said that was crazy and would result in the death of me and nothing would be gained. That does not mean I think cops should be allowed to break into my house unlawfully.

Seems you didn’t listen then either.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 20, 2012 8:33 AM
Comment #334811

IF I meant “all of us,” I would have said ‘everybody’ instead of people.
Yes there are people who believe it is governments job to provide them with “free” healthcare. If there wasn’t, the argument over forced universal healthcare would not exist. Same with food and shelter and the taxes taken to support those programs.

Nobody is sidetracked, union vs business isn’t new or shocking, and it is silly to pretend it is, based solely on the false stereotype that ALL Republicans do not support unions.

I always enjoy your take on things and I really look forward to that post you are putting up in a few days. Sounds like a good one.

Subliminal like the hidden meaning behind receiving a government check for doing nothing? OR, subliminal like the hidden meaning behind receiving a coupon to buy more Pepsi?
Seeing how they both encourage a certain behavior, you may be on to something.

Posted by: kctim at January 20, 2012 11:57 AM
Comment #334814
If there wasn’t, the argument over forced universal healthcare would not exist. Same with food and shelter and the taxes taken to support those programs.

Universal doesn’t mean free kctim. I don’t know anyone who thinks health care doesn’t have a cost to it. I have been paying into medicare for years why would I think it is free.

I really look forward to that post you are putting up in a few days. Sounds like a good one.

I just posted my rant, it is the link that is good.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 20, 2012 1:10 PM
Comment #362866

Nike Free 3.0 Shoes barefoot series of running shoes is one of the last couple of years, most the Nike fans favorite Nike Free 3.0 V4 running shoes.The series generally forefoot Waffle husband outside shading road design, has raised friction block has extremely suitable for running grip, and can be dispersed impact, make running more comfortable. The heel BRS1000 carbon fiber rubber, more wear-resistant, good grip, but the intense friction will leave a black mark on the ground.If Nike Free 3.0 Womens flexibility rating, 0.0 for barefoot running, 5.0 for ordinary running shoes. Nike Free Run Shoes running shoes introduced a FREE 3.0, Nike Free 3.0 V3 , FREE 7.0 FREE EVERYDAY FREE RUN + FREE style.nikefree30shoessale130315

Cheap Air Jordan Shoes series shoes are far ahead of other products in the sales and market demand, Air Jordan Retro 1 and set up one after another higher design, innovation and functionality benchmark year for the entire Air Jordan 4 industry. The core product is the perfect combination of athletes and technology - the most dazzling history of basketball star Michael Air Jordan 11, and accompanied by the the superstar experience the brilliant career of Cheap Jordan 4 Shoes, highlights his relentless pursuit of functionality, innovation and achievement.cheapairjordan4sale130315

Posted by: Nike Free 3.0 Womens at March 15, 2013 4:27 AM
Comment #363975

Nike Free Run series of running shoes is Nike Free Run 2 market in 2005 when, Nike Free Run 3 feet simulation barefoot feeling, Nike free run shoes can let your feet activities, bending and seize the ground, Nike free run womens like barefoot running. FREE soft running shoes suitable for any design of the Nike Free 3.0 from the Nike Free 3.0 V4 last. The last of the traditional Nike Free 4.0 V2 with pointed flat model. Nike Free Run 2 with shoe tree closer to barefoot morphology. Wrapped in the manner of the Nike Free Run 3 last and the materials used and makes the whole design barefoot feel closer. Nike Free 5.0 V4 Flexible soles and uppers of support to achieve harmony, Nike Free Haven 3.0 the degree of elasticity of the sole must be Nike Free 3.0 V3 consistent with the degree of support of the vamp. Nike Free Run 2 Womens Barefoot running simulation or will be greatly reduced.

Posted by: Nike Free 3.0 Womens at April 9, 2013 8:28 PM
Post a comment