Making unionization easier strikes me as foolish when every major union is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.
Wife is an elem teacher. I confirm that the screens are are for the adults not the kids. If you haven't spent at least 4-5 days in a Title 1, public school classroom in the last decade, you have no concept of the behavior problems. Passing notes, shouting out and disrespect? You're so last century. Real examples: child screaming randomly and continually; rolling around on the floor; screaming constant insults "you're stupid", "you're fat" at the teacher; stabbing multiple other children in the hand (drawing blood) with a pencil; stealing (endemic); going to YouTube during computer testing; destroying classroom fixtures simply for the sake of doing so... this is 2nd and 3rd grade! Only 1 of these was suspended (stabbing); the rest were sent to the office and sent back.
First of there is a difference between public sector unions and unions that cover the private sector i.e blue collar jobs.
Public sector unions are 100% democrat , this is mostly due to the fact that public sector jobs are depending on government funds and democrats are the party of big government while republicans want to shrink the government .
The picture is a bit murky when it comes to the private sector though , traditionally blue collar workers voted D because democrats were the party of the working class and as a result labor unions aligned themselves with the democratic party as well.
Things eventually started to change as blue collar workers gravitated from the democratic to the republican party as democrats focused on the college educated crowd and pursued policies that were not beneficial to blue collar americans.
The union leaders missed the boat and as a result the disconnect between the base and leaders grew bigger and bigger.
Some union leaders seem to get the message which is shown by unions decline to endorse democrats and reduced campaign contributions to the party .
By passing legislation that is beneficial to blue collar union members republicans have a once in a lifetime chance to not just secure the blue collar vote but also pulling union leaders into their camp a smart move that will secure the doom of democrats in years to come
I can go for that. Perhaps it's worth rolling the dice. As you suggest, if the GOP hates unions and unions hate the GOP, the only way is for one side to give reapproachment a try.
i would not say that the GOP hates unions , dislike is a better term!
The hostility towards unions stems from the fact that traditionally unions had a strong grip on their members and were aligned with the left so the union vote was out of reach anyway.
In my family i was the only one that was not a union member , my dad was a member of the IG Druck und papier and my brother was in the IG metal , both were very powerful labor unions in germany .
Neither one cared about politics or bothered to inform himself about what was going on in bonn or munich but they both turned out to vote every election cycle .
The union as things drew close to election day mailed out a list of candidates to vote for and the members obliged .
It was almost nauseating to see them vote for candidates but bein unable to cite one thing they stood for.
But things have changed quite a bit more and more union members break with the union when it comes to voting , i know quite a few long term union members here in TX that voted for trump in 2016 ,2020 and 2024 , the union leaders know this and realize that if they go against their base than they will lose members and so they are re aligning
We have been educating humans for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no mystery involved. The politicization has created unaccountability. The ultimate goal of an adversarial workforce.
“Then on Thursday, the House Transportation Committee voted 54–11 to adopt the Railway Safety Act (RSA), legislation introduced after the 2023 Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, as an amendment to the surface transportation reauthorization, over the objections of the committee chairman, the rail industry,”
Isn’t this the same bill that Dems tried to pass right after the derailment, but was killed by Republicans? What changed? Oh, right, they’re in the majority now, so they get to take credit. What a bunch of shits.
All three of those legislative achievements are good news and a real stretch for the GOP norm, but let's not forget the large number of Democratic votes needed to get across the finish line.
I hope the union measure is limited to unions in the private sector. If includes public sector unions, it won't be Wall Street that will take the hit, it will be state and local government. Public sector unions are not our friends. Even FDR opposed them.
FDR correctly noted that public sector unions are negotiating with themselves. It is hard to lose that way. Private sector unions have to worry about the overall fiscal health of the employer they are negotiating with. This provides a natural check on their aggressiveness that public sector unions don't have. Unfortunately, the energy in unionism for decades has been in the public sector.
That's all fine until it is your daughter that gets a federal boss' hand up her skirt.
Public workers are just as capable of abuse as any other. And frankly, there is nothing better for the taxpayer than a negotiated grievance process, saving costs in litigation and producing more fairness.
"...restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes."
,
if you want the market to provide more ketchup, pencils, or single-family homes
you ENCOURAGE investment in those endeavors. You don't Ban it, crazy people! You don't make it HARDER for economic players to invest and grow a market.
I'm all for the unions so long as you are not required to join them. The unions need to become the HR of the labor force to be effective. Help with training, and retirement planning and arranging benefits. When they become a good deal, people will join to have access to the benefits. Funding the D party (or the R party) is not the sort of thing we want to put into law. 10-15% of Union dues go to politics. It would be better put into retirement savings for the workers. Making unions apolitical (hard to do with a $700B to $2T big guy cut out there) would go a long way towards improving the overall American workforce.
The employees need to be required to join the union. It's not fair if some are not paying union dues but then share in the pay and benefits the unions bring. I did factory work for nine years in a union, and the union brought good pay and benefits.
The union also had workers safety in mind. We made armored personnel carriers (tanks) for the Army and Marines, and the union wanted at least two people in a tank for safety reasons ie someone might have a heart attack or get injured, and there needed to be someone close by to help or call for help.
I worked around chemicals too for several years (cadmium) and they made us wear gloves and a mask.One guy who had long hair and worked on a drill machine didn't tie his hair up like he was required to do, and a drill twisted and pulled a lot of his hair out. Safety is paramount.
Traditionally, unions have backed Democrats but that is changing. The top officials of the union may back Democrats, but the rank and file are voting Republican more often now. Trump needs to look out for these guys who back him.
Also: "Sean O'Brien, President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was the most prominent labor leader to speak on behalf of Donald Trump. He made history as the first-ever Teamsters leader to address the Republican National Convention, delivering an unprecedented prime-time speech."
Just a note about the easier unionizing and the "no more buying up single family housing"....This will make prices go up (the employers will raise their prices - unless they decide to be generous - to pay for the higher pay and benefits for their newly "bargained" employees) and this will make home prices go down (the lower amount of competition for single family homes since investors can't invest in them nearly as much, will make prices go down).
Don't get me wrong, these are very good things (especially if the top earners decide to give raises to the "underlings" in their companies, instead of just going straight to the idea of raising their prices....after all, how many yachts and homes in the country do people need?).
BUT here's the deal for the (about) 100 million retired or close to retirement or somewhat close to retirement people in the country - it's a bad thing. They worked (and this was back when people WORKED) the bulk of their working years, during those many decades while wages were lower and so they don't have much saved up for retirement now, especially factoring for inflation......and now, prices are going up, again. And to those who bought a home and have the idea that the increases in their home value will fund their retirement - well, those increases in value aren't coming as much (due to the afore mentioned lack of competition in the market) and they may even find their home decreasing in value.
You add on the costs of an illness or two, personally or in the family, and savings are depleted even more and remember that many (and as they get older, most) CAN'T work anymore.
My idea? Social Security payments have to be increased by a lot (or for those who were self-employed, some sort of help). Lots and lots of dead older Americans dying all over, the next few years/decades, AREN'T a good thing!
The companies don't need to raise prices to compensate for the increase in labor wages. They can stop purchasing stock buybacks and cut back a bit on shareholder revenue. The main one to stop are stock buybacks. These things increase the value of the stock, and then the president of the corporation and others inside buy the stock at a higher valuation, and make out like bandits because they are bandits. That money for stock buybacks could and should go to the workers. The unions can fight for that.
I agree, but obviously, some stock by back it needed for any corporation, at certain time. But to the extent that they all do it, it seems way overboard. Are they trying to be bigger than their britches, so to speak? Or is it just purely greed?
"The American Prospect reports that major U.S. freight railroads have spent massive sums on stock buybacks and dividends, often exceeding their capital expenditures. According to the magazine's investigations, this financial strategy has prioritized shareholder payouts over system resiliency, staffing, and infrastructure investment.
Key Findings and Impact
Massive Spending: Between 2010 and 2020, major rail carriers diverted $196 billion to shareholders via stock buybacks.
Priorities: Profit-driven strategies favor financial engineering—cutting operational costs and using cash for buybacks—leading to underinvestment in maintenance and system capacity.
Criticism: The Prospect argues that these practices exacerbate supply chain bottlenecks and leave the rail industry ill-equipped to handle crises."
Now that the House has passed the Railway Safety Act, sure hope the Senate also passes it and then Trump signs it right away. Incredible as it may sound, railroad companies now want to have driverless trains!!!
American Prospect, June 5, 2025 "Industry Lobbyists Pitch Driverless ‘Ghost Trains’ Across America"
"Rail industry lobbyists and their allies are pushing to reduce the already threadbare crews with remotely operated or entirely autonomous trains, despite the need for split-second decisions to adapt to changing circumstances. Ultimately, the desire is to take human beings out of the process entirely and rely on ghost trains, despite the potential risks to the countryside and nearby residents."
---------------
"The position of TTD and other unions representing rail workers is simple: Automation should augment the essential work railroaders do, not replace them. CEI’s claim that there is “no practical reason why these trains could not operate with just one-person crews or be operated entirely remotely” falls flat when confronted with the grim realities of railroading today, and the importance of safeguarding the public."
I sure hope the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) gets passed soon. It just isn't right that these workers vote for a strong union, and then the companies dilly-dally around and hope the workers forget about it. Strong unions are good. I worked in a factory for nine years before being promoted to the front office (and then going to college), and the union I belonged to was the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The union bargained for better wages and benefits, and we did good. I'll never say anything bad about unions. I hope the Railway Safety Act gets passed soon, too. I don't see how railroads can expect only one person to manage a freight train 1 to 2 miles long or sometimes even 3, which happens with the widely adopted Precision Scheduled Railroading (that's another story) .
Besides, it's dangerous. The union I worked in required two people to be in a vehicle at a time (we made armored personnel carriers for the military) in case someone got injured, had a heart attack or something like that. It's just better with two people.
Unions can be a really really bad thing. They hurt the lower and working classes because food, clothing, home products, etc. all cost more when unions are in place. Also, unions are often very corrupt. That being said, I think they are very necessary for SKILLED workers.
I'll add that I despise GOVERNMENT (public) unions because they are a corrupt RACKET: the Democrats vote for higher wages for the government workers, whose union, in turn, DONATE to the Democrat politicians.....who later give them raises again ......(check it out - unions rarely donate to Republicans). And then you have the infamous "bolt for a toilet costing $75".
Making unionization easier strikes me as foolish when every major union is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party.
Wife is an elem teacher. I confirm that the screens are are for the adults not the kids. If you haven't spent at least 4-5 days in a Title 1, public school classroom in the last decade, you have no concept of the behavior problems. Passing notes, shouting out and disrespect? You're so last century. Real examples: child screaming randomly and continually; rolling around on the floor; screaming constant insults "you're stupid", "you're fat" at the teacher; stabbing multiple other children in the hand (drawing blood) with a pencil; stealing (endemic); going to YouTube during computer testing; destroying classroom fixtures simply for the sake of doing so... this is 2nd and 3rd grade! Only 1 of these was suspended (stabbing); the rest were sent to the office and sent back.
It's worse than you can possibly imagine.
you have to understand a few things about unions.
First of there is a difference between public sector unions and unions that cover the private sector i.e blue collar jobs.
Public sector unions are 100% democrat , this is mostly due to the fact that public sector jobs are depending on government funds and democrats are the party of big government while republicans want to shrink the government .
The picture is a bit murky when it comes to the private sector though , traditionally blue collar workers voted D because democrats were the party of the working class and as a result labor unions aligned themselves with the democratic party as well.
Things eventually started to change as blue collar workers gravitated from the democratic to the republican party as democrats focused on the college educated crowd and pursued policies that were not beneficial to blue collar americans.
The union leaders missed the boat and as a result the disconnect between the base and leaders grew bigger and bigger.
Some union leaders seem to get the message which is shown by unions decline to endorse democrats and reduced campaign contributions to the party .
By passing legislation that is beneficial to blue collar union members republicans have a once in a lifetime chance to not just secure the blue collar vote but also pulling union leaders into their camp a smart move that will secure the doom of democrats in years to come
I can go for that. Perhaps it's worth rolling the dice. As you suggest, if the GOP hates unions and unions hate the GOP, the only way is for one side to give reapproachment a try.
i would not say that the GOP hates unions , dislike is a better term!
The hostility towards unions stems from the fact that traditionally unions had a strong grip on their members and were aligned with the left so the union vote was out of reach anyway.
In my family i was the only one that was not a union member , my dad was a member of the IG Druck und papier and my brother was in the IG metal , both were very powerful labor unions in germany .
Neither one cared about politics or bothered to inform himself about what was going on in bonn or munich but they both turned out to vote every election cycle .
The union as things drew close to election day mailed out a list of candidates to vote for and the members obliged .
It was almost nauseating to see them vote for candidates but bein unable to cite one thing they stood for.
But things have changed quite a bit more and more union members break with the union when it comes to voting , i know quite a few long term union members here in TX that voted for trump in 2016 ,2020 and 2024 , the union leaders know this and realize that if they go against their base than they will lose members and so they are re aligning
They only lose members if the members have a choice to leave. Therein lies the problem.
g
Schools are nihilistic labs made to produce robots and obedient workers not thinking moral beings. After 120 years of this here we are.
The university = The "New Religion" (religion of nihilism)
We have been educating humans for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no mystery involved. The politicization has created unaccountability. The ultimate goal of an adversarial workforce.
More of these please. So glad to see bipartisan efforts to help real people.
“Then on Thursday, the House Transportation Committee voted 54–11 to adopt the Railway Safety Act (RSA), legislation introduced after the 2023 Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, as an amendment to the surface transportation reauthorization, over the objections of the committee chairman, the rail industry,”
Isn’t this the same bill that Dems tried to pass right after the derailment, but was killed by Republicans? What changed? Oh, right, they’re in the majority now, so they get to take credit. What a bunch of shits.
All three of those legislative achievements are good news and a real stretch for the GOP norm, but let's not forget the large number of Democratic votes needed to get across the finish line.
I hope the union measure is limited to unions in the private sector. If includes public sector unions, it won't be Wall Street that will take the hit, it will be state and local government. Public sector unions are not our friends. Even FDR opposed them.
The bill is limited to private sector workers.
That being said, yes public workers also have a right to a union and protection from management abuses.
FDR correctly noted that public sector unions are negotiating with themselves. It is hard to lose that way. Private sector unions have to worry about the overall fiscal health of the employer they are negotiating with. This provides a natural check on their aggressiveness that public sector unions don't have. Unfortunately, the energy in unionism for decades has been in the public sector.
Thanks for the information about the bill.
Great points thank you.
That's all fine until it is your daughter that gets a federal boss' hand up her skirt.
Public workers are just as capable of abuse as any other. And frankly, there is nothing better for the taxpayer than a negotiated grievance process, saving costs in litigation and producing more fairness.
And if your daughter gets a teacher's hand up her skirt, the union will protect the teacher.
The union will present the facts in the grievance process in which it is not the arbitrator nor judge.
You seem to be involved with public sector unionism. Me too but I am much more cynical or as I say realistic.
Agree they will get in the government trough soon for the easy money and get to the bought politicians (see Democratic party) to keep ramping it up.
"...restrict large institutional investors from buying single-family homes."
,
if you want the market to provide more ketchup, pencils, or single-family homes
you ENCOURAGE investment in those endeavors. You don't Ban it, crazy people! You don't make it HARDER for economic players to invest and grow a market.
.
nutso beyond belief . . .
I'm all for the unions so long as you are not required to join them. The unions need to become the HR of the labor force to be effective. Help with training, and retirement planning and arranging benefits. When they become a good deal, people will join to have access to the benefits. Funding the D party (or the R party) is not the sort of thing we want to put into law. 10-15% of Union dues go to politics. It would be better put into retirement savings for the workers. Making unions apolitical (hard to do with a $700B to $2T big guy cut out there) would go a long way towards improving the overall American workforce.
The employees need to be required to join the union. It's not fair if some are not paying union dues but then share in the pay and benefits the unions bring. I did factory work for nine years in a union, and the union brought good pay and benefits.
The union also had workers safety in mind. We made armored personnel carriers (tanks) for the Army and Marines, and the union wanted at least two people in a tank for safety reasons ie someone might have a heart attack or get injured, and there needed to be someone close by to help or call for help.
I worked around chemicals too for several years (cadmium) and they made us wear gloves and a mask.One guy who had long hair and worked on a drill machine didn't tie his hair up like he was required to do, and a drill twisted and pulled a lot of his hair out. Safety is paramount.
Traditionally, unions have backed Democrats but that is changing. The top officials of the union may back Democrats, but the rank and file are voting Republican more often now. Trump needs to look out for these guys who back him.
Also: "Sean O'Brien, President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, was the most prominent labor leader to speak on behalf of Donald Trump. He made history as the first-ever Teamsters leader to address the Republican National Convention, delivering an unprecedented prime-time speech."
Just a note about the easier unionizing and the "no more buying up single family housing"....This will make prices go up (the employers will raise their prices - unless they decide to be generous - to pay for the higher pay and benefits for their newly "bargained" employees) and this will make home prices go down (the lower amount of competition for single family homes since investors can't invest in them nearly as much, will make prices go down).
Don't get me wrong, these are very good things (especially if the top earners decide to give raises to the "underlings" in their companies, instead of just going straight to the idea of raising their prices....after all, how many yachts and homes in the country do people need?).
BUT here's the deal for the (about) 100 million retired or close to retirement or somewhat close to retirement people in the country - it's a bad thing. They worked (and this was back when people WORKED) the bulk of their working years, during those many decades while wages were lower and so they don't have much saved up for retirement now, especially factoring for inflation......and now, prices are going up, again. And to those who bought a home and have the idea that the increases in their home value will fund their retirement - well, those increases in value aren't coming as much (due to the afore mentioned lack of competition in the market) and they may even find their home decreasing in value.
You add on the costs of an illness or two, personally or in the family, and savings are depleted even more and remember that many (and as they get older, most) CAN'T work anymore.
My idea? Social Security payments have to be increased by a lot (or for those who were self-employed, some sort of help). Lots and lots of dead older Americans dying all over, the next few years/decades, AREN'T a good thing!
The companies don't need to raise prices to compensate for the increase in labor wages. They can stop purchasing stock buybacks and cut back a bit on shareholder revenue. The main one to stop are stock buybacks. These things increase the value of the stock, and then the president of the corporation and others inside buy the stock at a higher valuation, and make out like bandits because they are bandits. That money for stock buybacks could and should go to the workers. The unions can fight for that.
I agree, but obviously, some stock by back it needed for any corporation, at certain time. But to the extent that they all do it, it seems way overboard. Are they trying to be bigger than their britches, so to speak? Or is it just purely greed?
From AI:
"The American Prospect reports that major U.S. freight railroads have spent massive sums on stock buybacks and dividends, often exceeding their capital expenditures. According to the magazine's investigations, this financial strategy has prioritized shareholder payouts over system resiliency, staffing, and infrastructure investment.
Key Findings and Impact
Massive Spending: Between 2010 and 2020, major rail carriers diverted $196 billion to shareholders via stock buybacks.
Priorities: Profit-driven strategies favor financial engineering—cutting operational costs and using cash for buybacks—leading to underinvestment in maintenance and system capacity.
Criticism: The Prospect argues that these practices exacerbate supply chain bottlenecks and leave the rail industry ill-equipped to handle crises."
Now that the House has passed the Railway Safety Act, sure hope the Senate also passes it and then Trump signs it right away. Incredible as it may sound, railroad companies now want to have driverless trains!!!
American Prospect, June 5, 2025 "Industry Lobbyists Pitch Driverless ‘Ghost Trains’ Across America"
"Rail industry lobbyists and their allies are pushing to reduce the already threadbare crews with remotely operated or entirely autonomous trains, despite the need for split-second decisions to adapt to changing circumstances. Ultimately, the desire is to take human beings out of the process entirely and rely on ghost trains, despite the potential risks to the countryside and nearby residents."
---------------
"The position of TTD and other unions representing rail workers is simple: Automation should augment the essential work railroaders do, not replace them. CEI’s claim that there is “no practical reason why these trains could not operate with just one-person crews or be operated entirely remotely” falls flat when confronted with the grim realities of railroading today, and the importance of safeguarding the public."
https://prospect.org/2025/06/05/2025-06-05-industry-lobbyists-pitch-driverless-ghost-trains/#:~:text=Inspired%20by%20Wall%20Street%20demands,PSR%2C%20has%20led%20North%20American
I sure hope the Faster Labor Contracts Act (FLCA) gets passed soon. It just isn't right that these workers vote for a strong union, and then the companies dilly-dally around and hope the workers forget about it. Strong unions are good. I worked in a factory for nine years before being promoted to the front office (and then going to college), and the union I belonged to was the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.
The union bargained for better wages and benefits, and we did good. I'll never say anything bad about unions. I hope the Railway Safety Act gets passed soon, too. I don't see how railroads can expect only one person to manage a freight train 1 to 2 miles long or sometimes even 3, which happens with the widely adopted Precision Scheduled Railroading (that's another story) .
Besides, it's dangerous. The union I worked in required two people to be in a vehicle at a time (we made armored personnel carriers for the military) in case someone got injured, had a heart attack or something like that. It's just better with two people.
Unions can be a really really bad thing. They hurt the lower and working classes because food, clothing, home products, etc. all cost more when unions are in place. Also, unions are often very corrupt. That being said, I think they are very necessary for SKILLED workers.
I'll add that I despise GOVERNMENT (public) unions because they are a corrupt RACKET: the Democrats vote for higher wages for the government workers, whose union, in turn, DONATE to the Democrat politicians.....who later give them raises again ......(check it out - unions rarely donate to Republicans). And then you have the infamous "bolt for a toilet costing $75".
Restricting house ownership to just 350 houses per investor--darn, that's extreme socialism!
How about taxing all the returns and economic rent made on every house owned above, say, 3? Or lower?