Another victory for the unions!

[Shady]

Of course...nothing says one cares so much for baby than a legal, safe abortion.

Yep, and a sanitized scalpel.

[Shady]

I get it....better to kill the unborn so they won't live in poverty like more than 15% of the world's population.

Apparently if a certain group of compassionate people deem the circumstances of your family situation to be unsatisfactory, then whether or not you're a living human being and science be damned. You should be killed. I'm hoping that one day, I too, can obtain that level of compassion and understanding.

[Guest]

I sure hope I get to decide that for myself one day.

[dre]

Apparently if a certain group of compassionate people deem the circumstances of your family situation to be unsatisfactory, then whether or not you're a living human being and science be damned. You should be killed. I'm hoping that one day, I too, can obtain that level of compassion and understanding.

I dont think campassion has much to do with it. Some people just dont see reproductive decisions to be something the government oughtta be involved in. I personally hate the idea of abortion and Id would rather it didnt happen. But its a matter of personal liberty, and common sense for me.

Womb-Control advocates appear to trust the government to make medical and reproductive decisions instead of the woman and her doctor.

[bush_cheney2004]

The "government" has already seen fit to make reproduction between family members quite illegal.

[BubberMiley]

Exactly. Individual freedom and responsibility are being eroded, little by little, by the right. That's why society gets less and less of it. And of course, the only cure, is more government, and less and less freedom and responsibility. You know, for the greater good.

Edited November 28, 2012 by BubberMiley

[bleeding heart]

If women have defacto control in the situation, does that not get the guy who knocks said girl off the hook if she goes through with the pregnancy. After all she could have had an abortion

It's become a bit of an ongoing discussion, and I think potentially an interestng one.

However, as it stands, it's a separate topic.

[bleeding heart]

Apparently if a certain group of compassionate people deem the circumstances of your family situation to be unsatisfactory, then whether or not you're a living human being and science be damned. You should be killed. I'm hoping that one day, I too, can obtain that level of compassion and understanding.

It's all about a woman's choice, not others determining under which circumstances she should have the choice.

Your argument applies far more accurately to anti-abotionists, interestingly.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's all about a woman's choice, not others determining under which circumstances she should have the choice.

OK...then it is also about health care professionals' choice to delivery such "services", and the role of government in paying for such "reproductive" choices. Gee, aren't choices great ? Choice A baby lives...Choice B and baby dies.

[bleeding heart]

Gee, aren't choices great ? Choice A baby lives...Choice B and baby dies.

Normally, you like to mock such emotive remarks about dead children. lol!

i guess it's only the unborn ones that really tug at the ol' heartstrings.

OK...then it is also about health care professionals' choice to delivery such "services",

It would appear more health care professionals will then won't...so not a major problem!

Edited November 28, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bush_cheney2004]

Normally, you like to mock such emotive remarks about dead children. lol!

Not emotive....just the facts. Having so much choice means a lot of dead "something".

i guess it's only the unborn ones that really tug at the ol' heartstrings.

Maybe...other people seemingly care more about puppies and kittens.

It would appear more health care professionals will then won't...so not a major problem!

Unless you're knocked up in PEI or Nunavut.

Edited November 29, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[bleeding heart]

Not emotive....just the facts. Having so much choice means a lot of dead "something".

Yeah...no emotive rhetoric...just objective reportage.

At any rate, even so far as it's true, your expansion on the theme here points to the broader matter about "choices" in the realm of health care and medical practice, in which personal and legal and medical decisions on every level are going to have consequences. In other words, the theme is so widely applicable that it's diluted of meaning.

For example, not having a "single-payer, universal health care" system means some are going to die who wouldn't under a different system; and having one means just the same thing for other people; some dead who would otherwise probably live under a more explicitly market-oriented system. It could easily be argued that every choice on matters of import are essentially issues of lesser-evilism. It's just that there's little agreement on what is lesser and what is greater.

That's where we're at with abortion, too, and presumably always will be.

Maybe...other people seemingly care more about puppies and kittens.

Not so many.

Unless you're knocked up in PEI or Nunavut.

Yes, there are obvious problems, no question.

That doesn't change the fact that we're not anytime soon to be overcome by a flood of anti-abortion health professionals on a large scale. Ain't gonna happen.

Edited November 29, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Speedy von Vloppen]

If you repeat a lie over and over it does not become true. The hostess employees and their union keep getting blamed for the company's demise, but that's scapegoating. That's just the oft-repeated lie. If you want the truth, you can consider these facts:

But the union and the 5,600 Hostess workers represented by the union did not create the crisis that led the company’s incompetent managers to announce plans to shutter it.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for more pay.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for more benefits.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for better pensions.

The union and its members had a long history of working with the company to try to keep it viable. They had made wage and benefit concessions to keep the company viable. They adjusted to new technologies, new demands.

They took deep layoffs—20 percent of the workforce—and kept showing up for work even as plants were closed.

They kept working even as the company stopped making payment to their pension fund more than a year ago.

The workers did not squeeze the filling out of Hostess.

Hostess was smashed by vulture capitalists—“a management team that,” in the words of economist Dean Baker, “shows little competence and is rapidly stuffing its pockets at the company’s expense.”

Even as the company struggled, the ten top Hostes executives pocketed increasingly lavish compensation packages. The Hostess CEO who demanded some of the deepest cuts from workers engineered a 300 percent increase in his compensation package.

Read more from the source: http://www.thenation.com/blog/171331/vulture-capitalism-ate-your-twinkies#

This scapegoating of the hard workers at Hostess is getting old.

[Pliny]

If you repeat a lie over and over it does not become true. The hostess employees and their union keep getting blamed for the company's demise, but that's scapegoating. That's just the oft-repeated lie. If you want the truth, you can consider these facts:

Read more from the source: http://www.thenation...-your-twinkies#

This scapegoating of the hard workers at Hostess is getting old.

Maybe Unions should start negotiating for better management?

Edited December 1, 2012 by Pliny

[Boges]

So Michigan is a Right to Work State now. I would call this a defeat for the Unions.

Does this mean UAW workers in Detroit can opt out? That'd be interesting.

Edited December 12, 2012 by Boges

[Topaz]

I saw some of this on the news and James Hoffa , leader of the Teamsters, said they will fight this in the court and at the polls by voting against any Republican that supports this. So you have the UAW, Teamsters and all government union employees, that a lot of people.

[Shady]

I saw some of this on the news and James Hoffa , leader of the Teamsters, said they will fight this in the court and at the polls by voting against any Republican that supports this. So you have the UAW, Teamsters and all government union employees, that a lot of people.

That's what they said in Wisconsin too.

[punked]

That's what they said in Wisconsin too.

and in Mich the last law the republicans and rammed through which THEY REPEALED! Or have you already forgot the Municipal-Finance Law. It also part of the reason why they had to ram through this law in a lame-duck session they governed poorly and the peopl of Mich told them to take a hike and their laws with them.

Edited December 12, 2012 by punked

[cybercoma]

The CEO practically admitted to robbing the employees of their pensions to pay for their executive salary increases and benefits.

But yeah... keep blaming the victims. This was all Obama's and the Union's faults.

Edited December 12, 2012 by cybercoma

[bush_cheney2004]

.... So you have the UAW, Teamsters and all government union employees, that a lot of people.

Not like it use to be, and getting smaller every year. Sorry big fat Teamster union bosses, the skim is over, not just in Las Vegas.

Unions are part of the problem, not the solution.

[Topaz]

So are you guys saying that a person who wants to work at one of the BIG 3, should be allow to but doesn't have to pay dues but gets to have all the benefits that the union dues and membership covers??

[bush_cheney2004]

No, they should get better benefits just for not being a union member !

Let organized crime earn their money the old fashioned way.

Edited December 13, 2012 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

The reason that Michigan brought this in is because they are using Texas as an example to bring jobs there but the unions are also using the state of Oklahoma, as were this didn't work. The US is deep in debt and with 40+ unemployed, they are certainly not getting the revenue coming in. Let's face it, US corporation rather go elsewhere in the world than help out at home. So in Canada , there's no reason for this labour law.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The US is deep in debt and with 40+ unemployed, they are certainly not getting the revenue coming in. Let's face it, US corporation rather go elsewhere in the world than help out at home. So in Canada , there's no reason for this labour law.

US Right-to-Work states have actually attracted far more automotive production than other states or provinces. US corps are closing Canadian subsidiaries and bringing work back home (e.g. Electromotive London, Ontario). I predict that Chrysler will leave Canada entirely because of CAW demands/games.

[punked]

US Right-to-Work states have actually attracted far more automotive production than other states or provinces. US corps are closing Canadian subsidiaries and bringing work back home (e.g. Electromotive London, Ontario). I predict that Chrysler will leave Canada entirely because of CAW demands/games.

Must be why the unemployment rate in right to work states is no different they any other state? All these jobs? Nope.