The Diane Rehm Show

THX1138 wrote:
Mike Sergeant wrote: "Ok here's the post:"

His point was that democrats on Obamacare allowed honest input on legislation and republicans did not on the RTW legislation. I merely pointed out that his use of Obamacare hearings was a false comparison because in the end THEY DID NOT ALLOW PUBLIC INPUT INTO THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT LEGISLATION .

Again, had you read the whole post, you would have seen that I had the opportunity to contact my representative by any means I had available to let them know my feelings of the bill. If it was never allowed to be heard by the opposition that it a different matter(note: I did not say acceptable), my representative was aware of my views and I had public input.

The Michigan RTW was passed before most of the public was aware that it was even being voted on, preventing anyone from making their representatives aware of their views on the bills. A family member who is much more aware of politics than I am was not aware of the bills passing. If it slipped past them, it slipped past most of us.

Mike Sergeant wrote:
"You seem to have left out a possibility of the free market, and a market is not truly free if it doesn't have access to all possibilites. The possibility is that a free market allows the worker to work for a business that has chosen not to organize."
Nice try. Essentially your argument boils down to - a company must be all-union, or no-union and I must choose between them. That offers clearly LESS freedom of choice than adding a third possiblity - that a company may be partly unionized and partly not.
Company A - is union
Company B - is non-union
Under your paradigm, if I don't want to belong to a union, I MUST work for company B or another non-union shop. That ELIMINATES company A for me, and not just the entire collection of businesses that are union shops but in some cases whole industries! That's a free market?! The Right to Work paradigm allows me to work for ANY company that will hire me, the entire UNIVERSE of companies and industries is open to me. This clearly offers much freer market opportunities for every individual.

The Last Moderate wrote:
"since the union has to bargain for its benefits for EVERYONE regardless of membership"
Sorry, that idea is flawed. While it is true that union bargaining will benefit all, Unions may offer other services to their membership that non-members do not get to take advantage of. I repeat; if unions to a good job for their members, employees will want to join. If not ... then let them fall by the wayside. That is the free market at work.

ecgberht wrote:
The Last Moderate wrote:
"since the union has to bargain for its benefits for EVERYONE regardless of membership"
Sorry, that idea is flawed. While it is true that union bargaining will benefit all, Unions may offer other services to their membership that non-members do not get to take advantage of.

Thank you! Thank you! I have posted, what, three comments on this website since I registered lo, these months ago, and I have not yet started a conversation. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to reply to me. That said, I originally registered with the site with the express intention of not fighting with other commenters--especially when I think they may be right! (If you aren't my friend, some other commenter will take you apart pretty quickly.) But my point largely stands--even if "Unions may offer other services," everything else "will benefit all." Again, thanks.

P.S. But I'll fight with the jerk who said Diane has a liberal agenda. Frankly, I think that's disgusting.

LOL, disgusting! in what way?

"Tom Ashbrook a conservative demagogue"

Who in their right mind would call him that? answer, only the lunatic left.

ecgberht wrote:
Mike Sergeant wrote:
"You seem to have left out a possibility of the free market, and a market is not truly free if it doesn't have access to all possibilites. The possibility is that a free market allows the worker to work for a business that has chosen not to organize."
Nice try. Essentially your argument boils down to - a company must be all-union, or no-union and I must choose between them. That offers clearly LESS freedom of choice than adding a third possiblity - that a company may be partly unionized and partly not.
Company A - is union
Company B - is non-union
Under your paradigm, if I don't want to belong to a union, I MUST work for company B or another non-union shop. That ELIMINATES company A for me, and not just the entire collection of businesses that are union shops but in some cases whole industries! That's a free market?! The Right to Work paradigm allows me to work for ANY company that will hire me, the entire UNIVERSE of companies and industries is open to me. This clearly offers much freer market opportunities for every individual.

Too black and white. Right now, as the law stands in Michigan I have three choices, work for union shop and pay dues, work for a union shop and not pay dues, or work for a non union shop. There is of course a fourth choice here, work in a non union shop and have a union represent me and me alone. Without this fourth option I do not have the access to the entire universe and therefore is not a free market. Are you going to start advocating for this option now? Didn't think so.

vetmom2004 wrote:
Another way to look at "Tragedy of the Commons" is to look at it from a resource conservation perspective (I believe that was the context of the writing). We have limited resources (such as tax dollars) to allocate for public programs. If some (such as unions, for their own benefits and salaries) take more, it leaves less for other programs (such as education). Debt increases, to be paid by those who never "took" from the commons in the first place.

That's an interesting perspective. I brought up the "Tragedy" only as an example of how someone can be psychologically forced to do what seems exactly what they want but actually works against them. However, I like your example, but may I suggest (given that you seem to be referring specifically to unionized teachers who are paid with public money) that paying teachers' salaries is not taking away money from "other programs (such as education)", but, in fact, is education spending, so I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

And @ that THX guy: I will not play your game. I am smiling slightly at your "LOL! in what way?" because of course you know very well how disgusting your statement was, but I'm not going to embark on trading insults with you, and indeed I'm sorry I called you a jerk before. That is not really my style. However, you're right about "only the lunatic left" would call Tom Ashbrook a conservative demagogue (I assure you I would vehemently defend him against them if they did). Also true: only the lunatic right would say Diane has a liberal agenda.

Before I go--don't you have any friends who had "Romney/Ryan" bumper stickers and "I <3 NPR" bumper stickers? You must, right? Unless it's because you don't have any friends at all.

Mr. THX1138, I will not deign to reply to you again.

THX1138; spot on! Listening to the callers this morning one comes to the belief that we have become a nation of government gimme's. Caller after caller spoke what the liberal media, including NPR, are cramming down their throats. Pensions should be gone, completely, for ALL public employees. They are bankrupting this country. Simple math and common sense are the only tools needed to explain this unsustainable insanity. But to listen to the host and panel one would believe that pensions are a birth right, wrestled from the big bad companies or government by sacrificing union servants! Free pensions and the unions who defend them must go. Especially pensions for union public employees. You know, the employees, who, as children had ribbons and medals given to them for last place. Then, mommy and daddy paid for college for them OR, if they just happen to fall into the affirmative action politically correct slots; college was given to them. After attaining that monster 2.76 GPA and ringing up a whopping 60k in student loan debt they now are voting adults, still on mommy and daddy's insurance, and voting liberal because the POTUS says he will forgive their loans; another bail out by their mommy and daddy though they are too ignorant to realize it. Some are lucky enough to land that state job with that public union who, after sucking from the public for 20 years (they call it 'service') they deserve to paid in retirement the same salary until their death...and, we wonder why this country is in the mess it is in. Oh, don't forget about the "free' healthcare. Meanwhile; this liberal product of 'free' can't quite understand why mommy and daddy have to go back to work until they are buried...

The Last Moderate wrote:
"Thank you! Thank you! ... I originally registered with the site with the express intention of not fighting with other commenters--especially when I think they may be right! (If you aren't, my friend, some other commenter will take you apart pretty quickly.) But my point largely stands--even if "Unions may offer other services," everything else "will benefit all." Again, thanks.
P.S. But I'll fight with the jerk who said Diane has a liberal agenda. Frankly, I think that's disgusting, and I'll say the same to anyone who calls Tom Ashbrook a conservative demagogue."

I don't come here "to fight". I come here for a free and fair exchange of idea, opinion, and fact. I find the DR Show mb more challenging than many others because the posters here, and the listeners to NPR are predominently coming from the left point of view. I agree that Ms. Rehm does as well. I dont' know that she has more of an "agenda" than to draw in listeners, but I suspect if you asked her, she has voted for few Republicans in the last 20 years. It sifts through the conversation like a fine dust - you almost can't see it, but you know it's there.
"But my point largely stands--even if "Unions may offer other services," everything else "will benefit all." "
I agree with you only insofar as bargaining with management is concerned, which is only a part of what unions do. They offer many other services like help with grievances, legal assistance, support during layoffs or strikes, etc. that would not be available to non-union members. It's about more than just wages and benefits. Today they have an inter-company monopoly that forces all employees with union-level jobs in the company to join. Instead, if unions in Right to Work states can offer good services to employees, more employees will join. That's going to make unions run leaner and meaner and that is a good thing for everyone.

Ladyingreen; when one factors in Hollywood performing artists as well as recording artists, pro sports, elected officials, and the millions of state and federal workers with fat pensions one will begin to understand the disparity in earnings. Now, add to the fact the average 'poor' in America receive goods and services equal to approximately 48k a year job; the readers are asking why you even bother to go there. Additionally, history has taught us, if we give EVERYTHING to our children they will mature expecting full handouts. The same is for the unemployed in this country. Approximately 5% have dropped out of the workforce and we are paying record levels of unemployment and permanently disabled on ss and unemployment. Liberals want to continue free forever and dangle more goodies paid by the taxpayer for political votes. History teaches us that this behavior will guide us to exactly where we are. Bankrupt, socially and financially. Your statement..."Without a push back on gop policies the US will become the first developed country to become a third world country"...is spoken like a true progressive. The GOP merely want Americans to stand on their own 2 feet. That there is an end to 'free' stuff and that this practice is unsustainable. Don't bother to argue that fact less you haven't read about Ca, Il, Ny, etc finances where public union pensions have bankrupt each and every one of these states. You must think exactly like that fine Detroit Councilwoman who proclaimed that THEY voted BHO into the White House so HE MUST bail them out. With other people's money. All the while the city's public employees don't give a dime. What city, county, state or federal agency do you work for?

Teachers aren't the only union employees, and education spending would also include more computers, infrastructure spending...the list goes on. One example to clarify the union spending would be the following. Equipment was purchased for a chemistry lab. The equipment was delivered to the building. Student TAs were available to move the equipment (at no risk of injury) 300 feet across the room and be paid for the work. TA salaries support their education AND getting the equipment moved would allow immediate research work. Instead, we had to put in a work order (on campus equipment moves require union labor, per the labor contract). A few days later and a $500 bill to the grant program, we were ready to start our research. I understand the work orders provide "proof" that support union jobs, but I would argue that this example has no real education benefit. I have other examples with consruction for lab renovation and the university mail system, if you need more examples.

Diane is as liberal as they get. The panels that she chooses are all, with a few exceptions, liberal mouthpieces. Be careful when one claims to be 'independent', then as predicted, expels the virtues of the progressives. There has never been balance with the Diane Rehm show. Those that dare are talked down and, rather than interviewed, are attacked and harassed. However, I listen because it works better than coffee to get me motivated for the day!

@Beyond The-Spectrum: RE your latest comment. You have "childish" in your opening words, and you end with "Yeah...that sounds sooo un-hypocritical!"

Sounds to me a (cast-iron) pot calling a (cast-iron) kettle black. Perhaps even a racist, self-hating black pot. Grow up, why don't you?

JUST KIDDING! Still, you have to admit it looks bad, doesn't it? Please act like one of the grownups on the site, like me and, in fact, ecgberht (THX is childish to an unfortunate extreme, so I'll give you a half-correct rating on that).

BTS; when you pipe into CNN, MSNBC, NPR, CNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, AP, USA Today, NYT, etc, then of course you will make statements like the above. The readers of The Diane Rehm show are not naive enough to remember Obamacare was given public airing. It was, and is to this very day, concocted behind close doors by a select group of liberals. Obama had to lie to congressman after congressman to get their votes (Stupak, no federal dollars for abortions! His constituency to this day in MI UP remember oh so well that lie). Remember Pelosi's statement...'we have to vote for the bill so that we can find out what's in it...or something insane like that? Obamacare is a LIE. Right to work was pushed by the GOP in this state the DAY Snyder was elected. It was not on his agenda. Liberals can thank their own, City of Detroit Public Employees, personally for bringing RTW to Michigan. Snyder had no choice, with Detroit bankrupt and no concessions from this union as well as city council befit for Sesame Street the adults needed tools to save Michigan from Detroit. Recall Detroit City Councilwoman telling Obama...'WE' voted you POTUS, now show us the money..." THAT is liberal thinking; there will always be someone else's money to bail us out. Obama used it to get to the WH the second time; he vilified the rich as not paying their 'fair' share. It's pathetic. What is fun to watch, now, are all the liberal Hollywood stars leaving CA in droves to avoid paying their 'fair share'. Moonboy is going to come up short just like EVERY state that has taxed their rich into leaving. It's just a matter of time before Brown is at the Obama trough claiming HE voted him in. Pathetic.