Testimony heard on contentious union fees bill

Maine union members and their labor representives listen to LD 390 lead sponsor Tom Winsor (right), R-Norway, argue for the bill during a public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011.
John Clarke Russ | BDN
Maine union members and their labor representives listen to LD 390 lead sponsor Tom Winsor (right), R-Norway, argue for the bill during a public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011. Buy Photo
Posted June 02, 2011, at 9:28 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this  
LD 390 lead sponsor Tom Winsor, R-Norway, (left, wearing tie) makes his way through the sizable crowd to enter the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee room to argue for the bill late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011.
John Clarke Russ | BDN
LD 390 lead sponsor Tom Winsor, R-Norway, (left, wearing tie) makes his way through the sizable crowd to enter the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee room to argue for the bill late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011. Buy Photo
Jenny Gray of Wiscasset sat on the floor in the Cross Building as she and other union members and their labor representives waited to voice their opposition to LD 390 during a public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011. Gray, is a bridge worker for the Maine Deptartment of Transportation. "I think it's going to be a long battle," said Gray of the "right-to-work" proposal for public employees.
John Clarke Russ | BDN
Jenny Gray of Wiscasset sat on the floor in the Cross Building as she and other union members and their labor representives waited to voice their opposition to LD 390 during a public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011. Gray, is a bridge worker for the Maine Deptartment of Transportation. "I think it's going to be a long battle," said Gray of the "right-to-work" proposal for public employees. Buy Photo
Chris Whytock (right) a firefighter E.M.T. with the Rockland Fire Deptartment waits with other union members and labor representives for the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee's public hearing regarding LD 390 in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011. "Anything that infringes on something you can bargain for becomes everyone's fight," said Whytock.
John Clarke Russ | BDN
Chris Whytock (right) a firefighter E.M.T. with the Rockland Fire Deptartment waits with other union members and labor representives for the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee's public hearing regarding LD 390 in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011. "Anything that infringes on something you can bargain for becomes everyone's fight," said Whytock. Buy Photo
Committee member Timothy Driscoll, D-Westbrook (left) asks LD 390 lead sponsor Tom Windsor, R-Norway (standing, right) about the bill during a public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011.
John Clarke Russ | BDN
Committee member Timothy Driscoll, D-Westbrook (left) asks LD 390 lead sponsor Tom Windsor, R-Norway (standing, right) about the bill during a public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011. Buy Photo
Maine union members and their labor representives listen to LD 390 co-sponsor State Sen. Lois Snowe-Mello (left) support the bill during Thursday's public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta.
John Clarke Russ | BDN
Maine union members and their labor representives listen to LD 390 co-sponsor State Sen. Lois Snowe-Mello (left) support the bill during Thursday's public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta. Buy Photo
LD 390 lead sponsor Tom Winsor, R-Norway, argued for the bill during a public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011.
John Clarke Russ | BDN
LD 390 lead sponsor Tom Winsor, R-Norway, argued for the bill during a public hearing before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee in Augusta late Thursday afternoon, June 2, 2011. Buy Photo

Related stories

AUGUSTA, Maine — Public testimony on a bill that would alter how public employees unions collect fees from nonmembers lasted well into Thursday night as supporters and opponents argued over the contentious legislation.

State employees are not forced to join a union. But if they benefit from union negotiations on contracts and in labor disputes, they must pay their “fair share,” and those “service fees” of roughly $6 a week are taken automatically from their wages.

LD 309 would make payment of those service fees voluntary.

About 8,000 employees are union members,and pay full dues. Another 2,780 pay only service fees — that’s roughly 26 percent of the total work force.

Opponents charge that workers who benefit from union negotiations for wages, job conditions and other factors should pay fees to cover those negotiations.

Proponents of the bill argue that state employees that do not pefer to belong to a union, and in some cases don’t agree with labor unions on principal, shouldn’t be forced to pay fees to support the organization.

It’s an issue that has largely broken down along party lines, with strong support for the bill from Gov. Paul LePage. Republicans charge that the fair share provisions were enacted as budget amendments over the past decade, pushed through by what was the Democrat-controlled Legislature and governor’s office. Democrats questioned the circuitous route the bill has taken, showing up for public hearing late in the session.

A bill that would have made similar changes in laws around unions in private sector workplaces was killed in the Legislature.

State office halls were filled Thursday night with union members seeking to testify on the bill before the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee. Committee leaders had a list of people wanting to testify that was four pages long, with 45 signed up to testify against the bill and 10 in support of it..

Testimony on Thursday night made clear that both sides of the issue largely came at it from basic philosophical differences.

“I think it’s immoral, I think it’s unethical,” Matt Mattingly, a town councilor and small-business owner in Gorham, said in testifying against the bill. “The freedoms have to be brought back to the people.”

Daniel Locke, a hydrogeologist with the state, said he used to be a union member, but quit after a 2003 change in state policy that forced new state employees to pay service fees.

“Since I could not reconcile the ethics of this practice, I severed my membership,” he said.

Locke said he was contemplating quitting the union anyhow, because it was involved in politics. Locke argued his case in courts up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where he lost his case in 2009.

Opposing the bill were union members from both public and private sector organizations.

Will Towers, a correctional officer in Hallowell, said he was concerned of the impact of the bill on public safety. Unions have negotiated decent wages and working conditions, he said.

“That keeps communities safe,” said Towers. “A right-to-work initiative like this will cripple the unions, cut us off at the knees.”

Joel Pitcher, a worker at Bath Iron Works and a member of Local S6 of the International Machinists Union, said the death of the bill that would affect private sector workplaces didn’t end the concern of private sector employees.

“In my opinion, there is no private sector, no public sector, there is only a working sector,” said Pitcher.

He charged that the death of one bill while the other moved forward was an attempt to divide and conquer, weakening opposition to the bill. He suggested if the bill passed, it would harm workplace morale among state workers, causing divisions in the work force. And, he said, the issue of fair share should be handled in contract negotiations.

“It belongs between the state and the state workers to decide if this clause will be in the contract,” he said.

The hearing started late in the afternoon, and for roughly three hours, testimony came from bill sponsor Rep. Tom Winsor, R-Norway, co-sponsor Sen. Lois Snowe-Mello, R-Poland, from legislators arguing for and against the bill, and from two experts who took each side — labor attorney Jeffrey Young, who argued against the bill, and Dan Billings, LePage’s chief legal counsel.

“I think we need to honor and respect those people who have a different philosophy — I can’t make that any more clear,” Snowe-Mello said. “This will allow state workers and families to make decisions regarding how their own hard-earned money is spent.”

She said state workers who have talked with her about the issue would rather negotiate for their own benefits and wages and not be required to pay fees to a union.

Rep. Kenneth Theriault, D-Madawaska, called the bill an “attack on the working families of Maine.”

“This bill is not fair and it is not right. It is not right to allow people to not be part of a union and yet still receive the benefits,” he said. “The intent of this bill is to weaken and destroy the union.”

Billings, LePage’s counsel, said the governor was unhappy when the two bills seemed to stall and he met with legislative leaders. Billings, Winsor and others came up with an amendment to the bill and got it sent back to the committee.

Billings said an out-of-state lawyer retained by the administration to handle contract negotiations also was consulted in drafting the amendment.

“We see this as a pro-workers’ rights bill; it allows every state employee to choose and to make an assessment whether representation provided by the union is worth the fee or not,” said Billings.

Billings drew a distinction between private sector workplaces and public sector ones. Workers in the public sector are represented by a union, but also by lawmakers, he said. And the profit motive that exists in the private sector isn’t in the public sector, he added.

Young, the attorney speaking for the unions, noted that many who testified for the bill talked about issues of fairness.

“We live in a majority rule country. It could be equally said that the 75 percent of people who have joined the union feel it is unfair the 25 percent of the people are getting the benefit of the contract without having to pay for it,” Young said.

He added that other states that allow public employee unions with service fees for non-members don’t have laws like the one proposed on the books, and suggested that passing the legislation would lead to a rash of lawsuits.

Testimony continued well past 9 p.m., and the committee planned to hold a work session on the bill in Monday.

Similar articles:

BDN Marketplace News

Marketplace Businesses

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • Anonymous

    Isnt this the bill that would not let unions charge dues to people who dont want to be unionized?. If so why is collective bargining even a part of this discussion. Oh now I get it the BDN is setting the table for a bigger fight down the road

  • Anonymous

    Isnt this the bill that would not let unions charge dues to people who dont want to be unionized?. If so why is collective bargining even a part of this discussion. Oh now I get it the BDN is setting the table for a bigger fight down the road

  • Anonymous

    I heard a dumb ad asking not to put the cost of teacher’s health care on them. Who else is supposed to pay their bills? I don’t want to!

  • Anonymous

    I heard a dumb ad asking not to put the cost of teacher’s health care on them. Who else is supposed to pay their bills? I don’t want to!

  • StillRelaxin

    Think about it folks. If you work in a unionized occupation here in Maine you don’t have to belong to the union but you do have to pay a lesser fee (NOT union dues) to the unions who still bargain for your higher than average wages and benefits. If you were to pay no fee at all then what would be the benefit of anyone being in the union? None right? So the union dies along with their bargaining power with the result being that wages and benefits quickly go down. Who’s happy now? Yep, your bosses. Their kids are going off to Harvard while the big honcho and the little lady (Wife, not secretary. Well maybe now his Girl Friday can tag along as well and take over Wednesday and weekend “duties” as well?) are heading to Hawaii for two weeks. Anyone supporting this bill is either digging their own grave or calling Delta for first class tickets to paradise.                             

  • StillRelaxin

    Think about it folks. If you work in a unionized occupation here in Maine you don’t have to belong to the union but you do have to pay a lesser fee (NOT union dues) to the unions who still bargain for your higher than average wages and benefits. If you were to pay no fee at all then what would be the benefit of anyone being in the union? None right? So the union dies along with their bargaining power with the result being that wages and benefits quickly go down. Who’s happy now? Yep, your bosses. Their kids are going off to Harvard while the big honcho and the little lady (Wife, not secretary. Well maybe now his Girl Friday can tag along as well and take over Wednesday and weekend “duties” as well?) are heading to Hawaii for two weeks. Anyone supporting this bill is either digging their own grave or calling Delta for first class tickets to paradise.                             

  • StillRelaxin

    Think about it folks. If you work in a unionized occupation here in Maine you don’t have to belong to the union but you do have to pay a lesser fee (NOT union dues) to the unions who still bargain for your higher than average wages and benefits. If you were to pay no fee at all then what would be the benefit of anyone being in the union? None right? So the union dies along with their bargaining power with the result being that wages and benefits quickly go down. Who’s happy now? Yep, your bosses. Their kids are going off to Harvard while the big honcho and the little lady (Wife, not secretary. Well maybe now his Girl Friday can tag along as well and take over Wednesday and weekend “duties” as well?) are heading to Hawaii for two weeks. Anyone supporting this bill is either digging their own grave or calling Delta for first class tickets to paradise.                             

  • StillRelaxin

    Think about it folks. If you work in a unionized occupation here in Maine you don’t have to belong to the union but you do have to pay a lesser fee (NOT union dues) to the unions who still bargain for your higher than average wages and benefits. If you were to pay no fee at all then what would be the benefit of anyone being in the union? None right? So the union dies along with their bargaining power with the result being that wages and benefits quickly go down. Who’s happy now? Yep, your bosses. Their kids are going off to Harvard while the big honcho and the little lady (Wife, not secretary. Well maybe now his Girl Friday can tag along as well and take over Wednesday and weekend “duties” as well?) are heading to Hawaii for two weeks. Anyone supporting this bill is either digging their own grave or calling Delta for first class tickets to paradise.                             

  • Anonymous

    “Unions cannot in the long run increase real wages for all wishing to work above the level that would establish itself in a free market. Their success in raising real wages can benefit only a particular group at the expense of others. It will therefore serve only a sectional interest.  This means that their activities necessarily reduce the productivity of labor all round and therefore also the general level of real wages’”  F.A. Hayek

  • Anonymous

    So why does someone in a public sector union deserve “higher than average wages and benefits”?  What service or product does a person working for a public entity offer society that is superior to a person working in the private sector?  What makes YOU “higher than average”? 

    And to extend the argument into private labor unions, what makes a union employee in America so much better than a non-unionized employee in China from whom the union employee in America purchases cheap products built with relatively cheap labor? 

  • Anonymous

    So why does someone in a public sector union deserve “higher than average wages and benefits”?  What service or product does a person working for a public entity offer society that is superior to a person working in the private sector?  What makes YOU “higher than average”? 

    And to extend the argument into private labor unions, what makes a union employee in America so much better than a non-unionized employee in China from whom the union employee in America purchases cheap products built with relatively cheap labor? 

  • Anonymous

    So why does someone in a public sector union deserve “higher than average wages and benefits”?  What service or product does a person working for a public entity offer society that is superior to a person working in the private sector?  What makes YOU “higher than average”? 

    And to extend the argument into private labor unions, what makes a union employee in America so much better than a non-unionized employee in China from whom the union employee in America purchases cheap products built with relatively cheap labor? 

  • StillRelaxin

    Yes, “At the expense of others.”  That would be our Hawaiian Head Honcho.  We feels ya pain massa.

  • StillRelaxin

    Yes, “At the expense of others.”  That would be our Hawaiian Head Honcho.  We feels ya pain massa.

  • StillRelaxin

    Yes, “At the expense of others.”  That would be our Hawaiian Head Honcho.  We feels ya pain massa.

  • Anonymous

    Sorry buddy, but the “expense of others” refers to the folks in China who you and all of your union buddies exploit through your purchase of cheap Chinese goods, all the while decrying some sort of injustice rendered unto you.  It’s simply absurd.  And the only “massa” here is you as you continue to demand higher wages and cheap goods from folks abroad who stand no chance at attaining the same wage as you.  

  • Anonymous

    Sorry buddy, but the “expense of others” refers to the folks in China who you and all of your union buddies exploit through your purchase of cheap Chinese goods, all the while decrying some sort of injustice rendered unto you.  It’s simply absurd.  And the only “massa” here is you as you continue to demand higher wages and cheap goods from folks abroad who stand no chance at attaining the same wage as you.  

  • Anonymous

    Federal employees who work in union shops do not have to pay this ridiculous “service fee”. Why should our state employees be forced to send a weekly payment to SEIU, for their use backing Democrat politicians? Talk about unfair!

  • Anonymous

    Unions unwittingly and unknowingly strive to cause total and complete joblessness in the United States.  They drive up the cost of doing business with their sense of entitlement while providing very little utility.  

    Look no further than the UAW who make automobiles cost $2000+ more per unit for Ford, GM and Chrysler.  That’s why you see the Detroit Three building cars in Mexico, South America and China, while Toyota and Honda build cars here, without union labor.  

    The time for labor unions has long since expired.  In the days of the Flint Sit Down Strike, they served a purpose.  Today they stand for inflated wages and benefits and reduced productivity. 

    Do you think the pulp and paper industry would be dying in Maine if the costs of production weren’t so high?  How many $25/hr unskilled slackers can a company afford to employ?  

    You can criticize “management” for “getting richer” and “keeping people down” all you want.  Higher wages are the result of hard work and chasing an education.  Being a G.E.D. superstar doesn’t entitle you to $30/hr, guaranteed overtime and never having to be worried about termination when you show up late and hung over.   

    People that install lug nuts or move around rolls of paper don’t deserve $75,000/yr for doing a job that someone with an extra chromosome could do.  I’m sure everyone thinks they deserve that kind of money but in reality, if you could easily be replaced by an 18 year old with no education and no work experience, you aren’t worth that kind of money.  

  • Anonymous

    Your description of LePages daughter was perfect and no union needed for $41,000 plus benefits no experience or education for the job and still living at home.
    Typical republican joke.

  • StillRelaxin

    I think what you’re suggesting is that I buy cheap stuff from china because I want to exploit them? Have I got that right? You presume a lot huh?

    Number one, I don’t buy ANYTHING that says made in China on it (100% crap).

    Number two, those who often do purchase their inferior products do so because that’s all they can afford. That’s all they can afford because they are in fact often being exploited by their employer (Likely someone who thinks, speaks, and votes like you).

    Number three, the heads of the corporations that have moved overseas to truly exploit these people don’t likely vote the same way I do. I suspect they are much more like you.

    Sorry buddy, from what you‘ve written it’s you who is looking more than a bit exploitive here. All I can say for sure is that you don’t have any bias in who you think should be exploited.  I’m sure that goe’s over well in certain small circles like Head Honcho meetings.  Not so well with St. Peter.   Good luck!   I think you may eventually need it. 

  • Anonymous

    One case of alleged nepotism has very little to do with 40 years of an undeserved sense of entitlement (i.e. labor unions).  

    Besides, wouldn’t you want to fill a the position of an assistant with someone you know and trust?

  • Anonymous

    One case of alleged nepotism has very little to do with 40 years of an undeserved sense of entitlement (i.e. labor unions).  

    Besides, wouldn’t you want to fill a the position of an assistant with someone you know and trust?

  • Anonymous

    One case of alleged nepotism has very little to do with 40 years of an undeserved sense of entitlement (i.e. labor unions).  

    Besides, wouldn’t you want to fill a the position of an assistant with someone you know and trust?

  • Anonymous

    So basically your claim is that you didn’t vote for Bill Clinton?  After all Clinton is the one who sold your unions out to China and allowed the “exploitation” of the Chinese worker from which you are claiming innocence.  I imagine you did vote for Clinton.

    And your claim that you don’t buy anything from China is a joke.  I could care less to argue the point but someone who claims they have NEVER purchased anything from China is dishonest at best.  Therefore, your own dishonesty will garner the distaste of St. Peter much, much more readily than an individual, such as myself, who believes in free markets and truly fair competition that does not rely on government coercion to provide a lifestyle I have neither earned nor deserve in relation to other humans around the globe.

  • Anonymous

    So, like many other pro-union posters here, you have no argument to support your position and you are apparently intellectually unarmed to address the arguments of deved931 offered above?  And you wonder why unions are coming under attack?  You can’t even offer a rational defense of your supposed “position”.

  • Anonymous

    The middle class has one last hope, unions !!!!!!!   This belief in a trickle down my leg creates jobs, is pure fantasy.

     The only trickle is from the CEO drooling over the support of the peasants that think these CEO need some slack.

    And the only inflated wages are for CEOs and politicians whose benefits and salaries have out paced the workers on the floor 10 fold and the inflated stock prices paying dividends to stockholders who want to go across the sea to pay slave wages and by cutting American jobs.

    The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World until NAFTA and now the Tea Baggers who have found their conservative groove.

     Why should a CEO make millions by paying slave wage,s either in this country or over seas, and by letting the Feds and States pick-up food stamps and healthcare, while the middle class almost is non existent EXCEPT for unions who battle for wages to keep at least some middle class hope alive.

  • Anonymous

    And who signed NAFTA into law sir?

    The wages that your unions have acquired for you are simply unsustainable in the global market.  The unions have utilized coercion to provide you an illusory existence and a level of wealth that is completely unrealistic.  How else do you explain that someone in another country is willing to live at a lower standard of living, producing the same goods and/or services that you once provided other than the fact that your labor is now overvalued in the global market?  Why do you deserve a higher standard of living through a job manufacturing paper products at a mill relative to another person in China?  Are you not both human beings?  What makes your labor worth more than theirs when you produce the very same product?

  • Anonymous

    hey dave….have you looked at american cars for the past 30+ years?  you think the unions are solely responsible for the mess?  do they design cars?  as for the paper industry in maine, there are many factors that have contributed to the demise….siphoning profits without investing in the mills here is one……why single out the unions?

  • Anonymous

    JUST ONE WORD      DECERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    JUST ONE WORD      DECERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Anonymous

    How exactly do the 6% of union employees in the private sector of the United States “unknowingly strive to cause total and complete joblessness?”  It is not just unionized jobs being sent overseas, in fact the vast majority of jobs being shipped overseas are in the manufacturing sector are not from union shops.  So to suggest the unions are the sole reason and driving factor behind joblessness in the United States is a tad over stated.  Unionized jobs or not, neither can compete with $2/ day labor.  I am of the belief that we shouldn’t be conducting trade with nations that allow their citizens to work for such a wage and under such miserable conditions.

    Ironically, overseas competition wasn’t all that big of a problem in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s, due to our country’s long standing practice of maintaining a tariff on imported goods.  This tariff provided protection for American workers from their lower paid overseas counterparts, effectively leveling the playing field.  Unfortunately this tariff was slashed by 80% in the early 1980′s during the Reagan administration (with a democratically controlled congress). 

    While I will concede to your above mentioned examples of union excess, it hardly represents most unionized employees in the private sector or even the public sector.   Many union workers are skilled or highly skilled ranging from plumbers and electricians to engineers and beyond.  To try to lump all union workers and label them as “G.E.D. Superstars” is both degrading and downright inaccurate. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Regina-Hosebeast/100002095287763 Regina Hosebeast

    Unions are no good. They are no better than upstart churches that try do bring people ” into the fold . They are corrupt and only will provide the final coup  to bring our country down.

  • Anonymous

    Of course the MSEA wants the issue done as part of the union contract.  They have stacked the deck by not allowing 26% of the employees who are paying for and are affected by it not to vote on the contract.

  • Anonymous

    MSEA didn’t die before mandatory fair share was implemented.  What has the union or more importantly the employees received for all the money they have given the Democrats?  Last year while the Democrats were giving state employees furlough days, no step increases, etc they passed a “tax reform” bill that by the third year gave the top 1% a tax cut of $34 million and the remaining 99% a tax increase of $3.4 million.  Not surprisingly MSEA-SEIU endorsed this bill.  Now this year you see the SEIU signs claiming that tax cuts are being given to the wealthy on the backs of state employees. 26% of the employees now pay for their share of the union contract.  The union rewards them  by not allowing them to vote on the very contract that they pay for and are affected by.  They only want those that fork over political contributions for the Democrats to be able to vote. 

  • Anonymous

    Well Daved,now that you have mis-characterized all union workers as un-educated slackers I’ll explain to you why my employer paid me and some of my fellow union workers $25.00 an hour.I started out in shipping and receiving and when an opening came up in the maintenance field I applied for and passed the test to become an apprentice pipefitter. After years in the field I became a technical specialist by going to welding school and passing the tests to work as a  millwright . Later in my career I had the oppertunity to become part of a specialized group in the predictive maintenance field and after going to night school and taking college math and computer courses I succeded in becoming a level 2 vibration analyst , I became certified in the use of Infra-red thermography, and I used ultrasonic  equipment to detect flaws in metal and check the thickness of different grades of metal. Part of the process of anyone who went up for pay increses involved written tests and oral exams and we were expected to be knowledgeable on every phase of the inner workings of a papermill from the time  wood chips came on site until they were turned into paper. What do you bring to the table Daved?    

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1079593918 Cris Edward Johnson

    Throughout America, unions are required to negotiate salaries, benefits
    and working conditions on behalf of all employees within their
    bargaining unit, members or not. They are also required to administer an
    and enforce procedures on behalf of all employees with respect to
    enforcing those contracts and governmental regulations to secure those
    rights.

    These obligations cannot be dismissed by the waive of a
    state legislature’s magic wand and it is for that reason that workers
    who chose not to join a union may justifiably required to pay a fee for
    the representation they receive. That fee (referred to as “Fair Share”)
    is far less than membership dues and is segregated from funds which the
    union may use for political or other activities.

    Even handed
    reporting is a difficult task, but the sentiments of employees who want to
    cheap-out on paying for representation by a certified union are
    misleading and the more revealing perspective would be an honest comment
    from a corporate CEO or a politician who said, “Unions are the only
    political force we have to fear in getting our own way so we’re doing
    everything we can to break their backs.”

  • Anonymous

    Think about ‘this’ StillRelaxin…
    You have been an employee of the State of Maine for 5, 10, 15+ years.
    When you started your employment, you made the CHOICE about whether or not
    you wanted to join the union.  You CHOSE ‘not’ to join the union.
    Along comes LD1915, Sen. Strimling (D) and Gov. Baldacci (D).
    The original ‘condition of employment’ has now changed for you.
    You no longer have a CHOICE. You are ‘required’ to pay a fee to the union now.
    The State of Maine is now collecting those fees, for the union.

    You tell me, what’s FAIR about that ?

    LD1915 was as partisan as it gets.
    A shining example of BAD LEGISLATION.

  • Anonymous

    Think about ‘this’ StillRelaxin…
    You have been an employee of the State of Maine for 5, 10, 15+ years.
    When you started your employment, you made the CHOICE about whether or not
    you wanted to join the union.  You CHOSE ‘not’ to join the union.
    Along comes LD1915, Sen. Strimling (D) and Gov. Baldacci (D).
    The original ‘condition of employment’ has now changed for you.
    You no longer have a CHOICE. You are ‘required’ to pay a fee to the union now.
    The State of Maine is now collecting those fees, for the union.

    You tell me, what’s FAIR about that ?

    LD1915 was as partisan as it gets.
    A shining example of BAD LEGISLATION.

  • Anonymous

     This from wiki should help evryone understand just who the labor unions truly serve ‘or is it the other way around?’

    “George Hardy (December 15, 1911 – September 13, 1990) was a Canadian-American labor leader who was president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) from 1971 to 1980. At the time of his death, SEIU had grown to become the fifth-largest affiliate of the AFL-CIO.[1] Hardy was a vice president of the AFL-CIO from 1972 to 1980, and a member of its executive council.[1] He was a former member of the Democratic National Committee[2] and the California Democratic State Central Committee.[1]

  • Anonymous

    There is no argument, if bargaining is done for you, you pay. Republicans want a handout from other peoples work.  

  • Anonymous

    Well said!!

  • Anonymous

    The source of your law degree says it all; socialist, left-wing entitlement mentality.

  • Anonymous

    You are to be commended but methinks you are a RARE exception. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

    I would prefer to bargain for myself based on my value to the organization.

  • StillRelaxin

    So basically you know about as much about me as you do Bill Clinton. Wow, and the first conversation we’ve ever had was here yesterday. Your either extremely perceptive or extremely self-serving, closed minded, and judgmental. I think I can guess which one but why bother? You’ve got everything and everyone all figured out.   Remarkable.

  • Anonymous

    There are instances where funds were not reinvested in paper mills because they made products like newsprint and phonebook paper.  Both of which are dying media thanks to the Internet.

    Engineering concerns not withstanding, it’s tough to compete when you’ve got to buy Viagra for an aging, uneducated work force that continues to make bad lifestyle choices (smoking, obesity).  GM is the world’s largest buyer of Viagra.  

  • Anonymous

    There are instances where funds were not reinvested in paper mills because they made products like newsprint and phonebook paper.  Both of which are dying media thanks to the Internet.

    Engineering concerns not withstanding, it’s tough to compete when you’ve got to buy Viagra for an aging, uneducated work force that continues to make bad lifestyle choices (smoking, obesity).  GM is the world’s largest buyer of Viagra.  

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

      As you might expect, the country that wins a war tries to impose its values on the losers. This happened in 1945 when Eisenhower and his victorious allies set up a German constitution that would eliminate what they considered to be the evil elements of fascism. You can read in the Encyclopedia Britannica  that in Germany “After World War II [,] the right to organize trade unions and to strike was constitutionally guaranteed.“
     
    This must have changed things around 180 degrees for rich and poor alike in 1945 Germany, because the Nazis had abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. You might be too young to know about the Nazis but we heard a lot about them on the radio in the early 1940s. Back then, they were considered to be very bad guys. An organization called the ‘Labor Front’ replaced the old trade unions in Germany, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers.
     
    You might be surprised to hear that in 1945 the right to organize trade unions and to strike was one of the basic rights that — in 1945 — seemed to be one of the basic differences between a democracy for the people — and a fascist military-corporate state run by folks we used to call Nazis.
     
    Would you also be surprised to learn that in Japan people also have the right to strike? It’s in their Constitution and we put it there after World War 2 as a protection from fascism. Again, in 1945 the fascists were the bad guys, remember?
     
    Do think it was nice of us, the victors, to write constitutions for Germany and Japan to ensure that this military-corporate run type of government called fascism would never again raise its ugly head — in Germany and Japan? Remember that back when I was a kid we thought by stamping out this fascist thing over there, we’d forever and ever be safe from it.
     
    Well, who would know? We hardly ever hear any talk about fascism nowadays. Although we certainly honor our few remaining venerable veterans and their buddies who died fighting fascism, unless we are very old or have read a few history books most of us are not even sure what fascism is.
     
    But — if you’ve heard anything lately about people going on strike and the reaction by several governors to folks who go on strike, could it be that there are a lot of folks out there in very high places who really don’t want you to be able to recognize that good old-time fascism when you see it?

    The humble Farmer

  • Anonymous

    “unions collect fees from nonmembers”  A day will come when the unions “will attempt” to collect from the private sector— it will be a bad day for them…!
     
    If you want to be in a union, all the power to ya, but pull this mandatory crap in the private sector, and there will be trouble.
     
    Unlike the sheeple in government jobs, many of us in the private sector that have had to fend for self’s will never cave…!

  • Anonymous

    Sounds like there shouldn’t be a non-union option. The union people are against the non-union people “benefiting” from the decent wages & workplaces they have negotiated. After all, the state would provide horrid working conditions were it not for the union. Let’s separate the union & non-union workers. Then the non-union people could fend for themselves as they want to anyway. Of course, then we’d also be able to see any production differences. That would be interesting, wouldn’t it?

  • Anonymous

    That 3 martini lunch has put your logic on the rocks.
    What union are you a member of? L.U.A.H.O.?
    (Leg up and hand out)

  • kcjonez

    Oh come now Humble.  Surely you are not suggesting that fascism is happening right here in the good ol’ U S of A.  This concerted agenda to eliminate unions, privatize education, perpetuate war and establish a new aristocracy…….this subversive ALEC trend to buying our government at all levels…….this glorification of the corporation and vilification of the worker?   There must be a less abrasive moniker we can attach to it.  Plutocracy or corporatocracy or some different expression of the same concept.  To admit that we are a fascist nation is just a tad unpalatable, eh?  

  • Anonymous

    Unions were started to protect employees when laws to protect employees were not in place. They have no role anymore, have a history of corruption, and need to stop forcing people to pay dues who do not want to.  I was at an employer recently where the union was voted out and the workers on the floor were relieved that they could stand on their own, help others in different departments and felt they were a team again.  Funny how the press never reports stories like that as it was intersting to have employees tell me about how bad things were with union in their workplace…

  • Anonymous

    Spellcheck.

  • Anonymous

    unions continue to destroy jobs in the US

  • Anonymous

    unions continue to destroy jobs in the US

  • Anonymous

    unions continue to destroy jobs in the US

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Read these words from Black Bear Nut Case:
     
    The middle class has one last hope, unions !!!!!!!   This belief in a trickle down my leg creates jobs, is pure fantasy.  The only trickle is from the CEO drooling over the support of the peasants that think these CEO need some slack. And the only inflated wages are for CEOs and politicians whose benefits and salaries have out paced the workers on the floor 10 fold and the inflated stock prices paying dividends to stockholders who want to go across the sea to pay slave wages and by cutting American jobs. The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World until NAFTA and now the Tea Baggers who have found their conservative groove. Why should a CEO make millions by paying slave wage,s either in this country or over seas, and by letting the Feds and States pick-up food stamps and healthcare, while the middle class almost is non existent EXCEPT for unions who battle for wages to keep at least some middle class hope alive.

    Well….
     
    I can see why you call yourself a Nut Case.
     
    An educated/well-read person in Maine who sees it as it is and tells it like it is pretty much stands alone nowadays.  Most people with any smarts at all know enough to keep their mouths shut and simply stand back and watch the uninitiated call each other names.
     
     Do you ever feel that you are wasting your time talking with people who don’t bother to read and don’t even want to know that there is a big difference between the standard of living in the US and most any country in northern Europe?  This week, when we were discussing our health care system, a friend very astutely said, “Well, it’s better than what they have in Rwanda.”
     
    This week I was hired to speak to 12 classes in a Maine high school, and have had the unique opportunity to suggest to students that upon graduation they grab a knapsack and spend a few months wandering around in Europe.  Talk with the young people there. Go into their homes. See how they live.

    When I talked with a couple of kids one-on-one, some eyes opened wide and they said — in so many words — they’d never realized that opportunity was out there. If I’ve managed to make one student receptive to an alternative opportunity, it was worth getting up at 4 AM for the past four days.

    If you really want to screw up the present plan to accustom Maine kids to working long hours for low pay with the inevitable oppressive car payment (to lock them into the system), suggest to them that they go to Europe and get an education.

    There’s no hope for us, Nut Case. We’re going down, but there is still time to help some of the brighter young folks off a sinking ship.

    The humble Farmer

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Read these words from Black Bear Nut Case:
     
    The middle class has one last hope, unions !!!!!!!   This belief in a trickle down my leg creates jobs, is pure fantasy.  The only trickle is from the CEO drooling over the support of the peasants that think these CEO need some slack. And the only inflated wages are for CEOs and politicians whose benefits and salaries have out paced the workers on the floor 10 fold and the inflated stock prices paying dividends to stockholders who want to go across the sea to pay slave wages and by cutting American jobs. The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World until NAFTA and now the Tea Baggers who have found their conservative groove. Why should a CEO make millions by paying slave wage,s either in this country or over seas, and by letting the Feds and States pick-up food stamps and healthcare, while the middle class almost is non existent EXCEPT for unions who battle for wages to keep at least some middle class hope alive.

    Well….
     
    I can see why you call yourself a Nut Case.
     
    An educated/well-read person in Maine who sees it as it is and tells it like it is pretty much stands alone nowadays.  Most people with any smarts at all know enough to keep their mouths shut and simply stand back and watch the uninitiated call each other names.
     
     Do you ever feel that you are wasting your time talking with people who don’t bother to read and don’t even want to know that there is a big difference between the standard of living in the US and most any country in northern Europe?  This week, when we were discussing our health care system, a friend very astutely said, “Well, it’s better than what they have in Rwanda.”
     
    This week I was hired to speak to 12 classes in a Maine high school, and have had the unique opportunity to suggest to students that upon graduation they grab a knapsack and spend a few months wandering around in Europe.  Talk with the young people there. Go into their homes. See how they live.

    When I talked with a couple of kids one-on-one, some eyes opened wide and they said — in so many words — they’d never realized that opportunity was out there. If I’ve managed to make one student receptive to an alternative opportunity, it was worth getting up at 4 AM for the past four days.

    If you really want to screw up the present plan to accustom Maine kids to working long hours for low pay with the inevitable oppressive car payment (to lock them into the system), suggest to them that they go to Europe and get an education.

    There’s no hope for us, Nut Case. We’re going down, but there is still time to help some of the brighter young folks off a sinking ship.

    The humble Farmer

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Read these words from Black Bear Nut Case:
     
    The middle class has one last hope, unions !!!!!!!   This belief in a trickle down my leg creates jobs, is pure fantasy.  The only trickle is from the CEO drooling over the support of the peasants that think these CEO need some slack. And the only inflated wages are for CEOs and politicians whose benefits and salaries have out paced the workers on the floor 10 fold and the inflated stock prices paying dividends to stockholders who want to go across the sea to pay slave wages and by cutting American jobs. The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World until NAFTA and now the Tea Baggers who have found their conservative groove. Why should a CEO make millions by paying slave wage,s either in this country or over seas, and by letting the Feds and States pick-up food stamps and healthcare, while the middle class almost is non existent EXCEPT for unions who battle for wages to keep at least some middle class hope alive.

    Well….
     
    I can see why you call yourself a Nut Case.
     
    An educated/well-read person in Maine who sees it as it is and tells it like it is pretty much stands alone nowadays.  Most people with any smarts at all know enough to keep their mouths shut and simply stand back and watch the uninitiated call each other names.
     
     Do you ever feel that you are wasting your time talking with people who don’t bother to read and don’t even want to know that there is a big difference between the standard of living in the US and most any country in northern Europe?  This week, when we were discussing our health care system, a friend very astutely said, “Well, it’s better than what they have in Rwanda.”
     
    This week I was hired to speak to 12 classes in a Maine high school, and have had the unique opportunity to suggest to students that upon graduation they grab a knapsack and spend a few months wandering around in Europe.  Talk with the young people there. Go into their homes. See how they live.

    When I talked with a couple of kids one-on-one, some eyes opened wide and they said — in so many words — they’d never realized that opportunity was out there. If I’ve managed to make one student receptive to an alternative opportunity, it was worth getting up at 4 AM for the past four days.

    If you really want to screw up the present plan to accustom Maine kids to working long hours for low pay with the inevitable oppressive car payment (to lock them into the system), suggest to them that they go to Europe and get an education.

    There’s no hope for us, Nut Case. We’re going down, but there is still time to help some of the brighter young folks off a sinking ship.

    The humble Farmer

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Read these words from Black Bear Nut Case:
     
    The middle class has one last hope, unions !!!!!!!   This belief in a trickle down my leg creates jobs, is pure fantasy.  The only trickle is from the CEO drooling over the support of the peasants that think these CEO need some slack. And the only inflated wages are for CEOs and politicians whose benefits and salaries have out paced the workers on the floor 10 fold and the inflated stock prices paying dividends to stockholders who want to go across the sea to pay slave wages and by cutting American jobs. The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World until NAFTA and now the Tea Baggers who have found their conservative groove. Why should a CEO make millions by paying slave wage,s either in this country or over seas, and by letting the Feds and States pick-up food stamps and healthcare, while the middle class almost is non existent EXCEPT for unions who battle for wages to keep at least some middle class hope alive.

    Well….
     
    I can see why you call yourself a Nut Case.
     
    An educated/well-read person in Maine who sees it as it is and tells it like it is pretty much stands alone nowadays.  Most people with any smarts at all know enough to keep their mouths shut and simply stand back and watch the uninitiated call each other names.
     
     Do you ever feel that you are wasting your time talking with people who don’t bother to read and don’t even want to know that there is a big difference between the standard of living in the US and most any country in northern Europe?  This week, when we were discussing our health care system, a friend very astutely said, “Well, it’s better than what they have in Rwanda.”
     
    This week I was hired to speak to 12 classes in a Maine high school, and have had the unique opportunity to suggest to students that upon graduation they grab a knapsack and spend a few months wandering around in Europe.  Talk with the young people there. Go into their homes. See how they live.

    When I talked with a couple of kids one-on-one, some eyes opened wide and they said — in so many words — they’d never realized that opportunity was out there. If I’ve managed to make one student receptive to an alternative opportunity, it was worth getting up at 4 AM for the past four days.

    If you really want to screw up the present plan to accustom Maine kids to working long hours for low pay with the inevitable oppressive car payment (to lock them into the system), suggest to them that they go to Europe and get an education.

    There’s no hope for us, Nut Case. We’re going down, but there is still time to help some of the brighter young folks off a sinking ship.

    The humble Farmer

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Read these words from Black Bear Nut Case:
     
    The middle class has one last hope, unions !!!!!!!   This belief in a trickle down my leg creates jobs, is pure fantasy.  The only trickle is from the CEO drooling over the support of the peasants that think these CEO need some slack. And the only inflated wages are for CEOs and politicians whose benefits and salaries have out paced the workers on the floor 10 fold and the inflated stock prices paying dividends to stockholders who want to go across the sea to pay slave wages and by cutting American jobs. The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World until NAFTA and now the Tea Baggers who have found their conservative groove. Why should a CEO make millions by paying slave wage,s either in this country or over seas, and by letting the Feds and States pick-up food stamps and healthcare, while the middle class almost is non existent EXCEPT for unions who battle for wages to keep at least some middle class hope alive.

    Well….
     
    I can see why you call yourself a Nut Case.
     
    An educated/well-read person in Maine who sees it as it is and tells it like it is pretty much stands alone nowadays.  Most people with any smarts at all know enough to keep their mouths shut and simply stand back and watch the uninitiated call each other names.
     
     Do you ever feel that you are wasting your time talking with people who don’t bother to read and don’t even want to know that there is a big difference between the standard of living in the US and most any country in northern Europe?  This week, when we were discussing our health care system, a friend very astutely said, “Well, it’s better than what they have in Rwanda.”
     
    This week I was hired to speak to 12 classes in a Maine high school, and have had the unique opportunity to suggest to students that upon graduation they grab a knapsack and spend a few months wandering around in Europe.  Talk with the young people there. Go into their homes. See how they live.

    When I talked with a couple of kids one-on-one, some eyes opened wide and they said — in so many words — they’d never realized that opportunity was out there. If I’ve managed to make one student receptive to an alternative opportunity, it was worth getting up at 4 AM for the past four days.

    If you really want to screw up the present plan to accustom Maine kids to working long hours for low pay with the inevitable oppressive car payment (to lock them into the system), suggest to them that they go to Europe and get an education.

    There’s no hope for us, Nut Case. We’re going down, but there is still time to help some of the brighter young folks off a sinking ship.

    The humble Farmer

  • kcjonez

    What an elitist statement!

  • kcjonez

    What an elitist statement!

  • kcjonez

    What an elitist statement!

  • kcjonez

    What an elitist statement!

  • kcjonez

    What an elitist statement!

  • Anonymous

    Watch Dan Billings explain whether paying a fair share is fair:

    http://bit.ly/kpaFd3 

    Billings also had this to say about the involvement of Lou DiLorenzo, the labor lawyer from New York, with LD309:

    http://bit.ly/jzCw2K

  • Anonymous

    Watch Dan Billings explain whether paying a fair share is fair:

    http://bit.ly/kpaFd3 

    Billings also had this to say about the involvement of Lou DiLorenzo, the labor lawyer from New York, with LD309:

    http://bit.ly/jzCw2K

  • Anonymous

    Watch Dan Billings explain whether paying a fair share is fair:

    http://bit.ly/kpaFd3 

    Billings also had this to say about the involvement of Lou DiLorenzo, the labor lawyer from New York, with LD309:

    http://bit.ly/jzCw2K

  • Anonymous

    Watch Dan Billings explain whether paying a fair share is fair:

    http://bit.ly/kpaFd3 

    Billings also had this to say about the involvement of Lou DiLorenzo, the labor lawyer from New York, with LD309:

    http://bit.ly/jzCw2K

  • Anonymous

    Watch Dan Billings explain whether paying a fair share is fair:

    http://bit.ly/kpaFd3 

    Billings also had this to say about the involvement of Lou DiLorenzo, the labor lawyer from New York, with LD309:

    http://bit.ly/jzCw2K

  • Anonymous

    Watch Dan Billings explain whether paying a fair share is fair:

    http://bit.ly/kpaFd3 

    Billings also had this to say about the involvement of Lou DiLorenzo, the labor lawyer from New York, with LD309:

    http://bit.ly/jzCw2K

  • Anonymous

    You made the best comment here.  It is easy to blame the “bad unions”, but the truth is that the mills owners (shareholders mostly) wanted the highest profits and the mills were played out without sufficient new investments. 

    The new investments went to third world countries where labor was and remains dirt cheap.  The problem was not unions, taxes or regs.  The highest variable cost any business faces is labor and union or non-union, no-one in Maine can work for $2/day.  If anyone can live on $2/day, please raise your hands.

    This is the result of pure greed by investors with no concern for workers, the state or the country.

  • Anonymous

    You made the best comment here.  It is easy to blame the “bad unions”, but the truth is that the mills owners (shareholders mostly) wanted the highest profits and the mills were played out without sufficient new investments. 

    The new investments went to third world countries where labor was and remains dirt cheap.  The problem was not unions, taxes or regs.  The highest variable cost any business faces is labor and union or non-union, no-one in Maine can work for $2/day.  If anyone can live on $2/day, please raise your hands.

    This is the result of pure greed by investors with no concern for workers, the state or the country.

  • Anonymous

    You made the best comment here.  It is easy to blame the “bad unions”, but the truth is that the mills owners (shareholders mostly) wanted the highest profits and the mills were played out without sufficient new investments. 

    The new investments went to third world countries where labor was and remains dirt cheap.  The problem was not unions, taxes or regs.  The highest variable cost any business faces is labor and union or non-union, no-one in Maine can work for $2/day.  If anyone can live on $2/day, please raise your hands.

    This is the result of pure greed by investors with no concern for workers, the state or the country.

  • Anonymous

    You made the best comment here.  It is easy to blame the “bad unions”, but the truth is that the mills owners (shareholders mostly) wanted the highest profits and the mills were played out without sufficient new investments. 

    The new investments went to third world countries where labor was and remains dirt cheap.  The problem was not unions, taxes or regs.  The highest variable cost any business faces is labor and union or non-union, no-one in Maine can work for $2/day.  If anyone can live on $2/day, please raise your hands.

    This is the result of pure greed by investors with no concern for workers, the state or the country.

  • Anonymous

    You made the best comment here.  It is easy to blame the “bad unions”, but the truth is that the mills owners (shareholders mostly) wanted the highest profits and the mills were played out without sufficient new investments. 

    The new investments went to third world countries where labor was and remains dirt cheap.  The problem was not unions, taxes or regs.  The highest variable cost any business faces is labor and union or non-union, no-one in Maine can work for $2/day.  If anyone can live on $2/day, please raise your hands.

    This is the result of pure greed by investors with no concern for workers, the state or the country.

  • Anonymous

    You made the best comment here.  It is easy to blame the “bad unions”, but the truth is that the mills owners (shareholders mostly) wanted the highest profits and the mills were played out without sufficient new investments. 

    The new investments went to third world countries where labor was and remains dirt cheap.  The problem was not unions, taxes or regs.  The highest variable cost any business faces is labor and union or non-union, no-one in Maine can work for $2/day.  If anyone can live on $2/day, please raise your hands.

    This is the result of pure greed by investors with no concern for workers, the state or the country.

  • Anonymous

    You made the best comment here.  It is easy to blame the “bad unions”, but the truth is that the mills owners (shareholders mostly) wanted the highest profits and the mills were played out without sufficient new investments. 

    The new investments went to third world countries where labor was and remains dirt cheap.  The problem was not unions, taxes or regs.  The highest variable cost any business faces is labor and union or non-union, no-one in Maine can work for $2/day.  If anyone can live on $2/day, please raise your hands.

    This is the result of pure greed by investors with no concern for workers, the state or the country.

  • Anonymous

    You made the best comment here.  It is easy to blame the “bad unions”, but the truth is that the mills owners (shareholders mostly) wanted the highest profits and the mills were played out without sufficient new investments. 

    The new investments went to third world countries where labor was and remains dirt cheap.  The problem was not unions, taxes or regs.  The highest variable cost any business faces is labor and union or non-union, no-one in Maine can work for $2/day.  If anyone can live on $2/day, please raise your hands.

    This is the result of pure greed by investors with no concern for workers, the state or the country.

  • Anonymous

    Good for you, but in fairness to Daved, I don’t think he called all union workers un-educated slackers. 

  • Anonymous

    Good for you, but in fairness to Daved, I don’t think he called all union workers un-educated slackers. 

  • Anonymous

    Good for you, but in fairness to Daved, I don’t think he called all union workers un-educated slackers. 

  • Anonymous

    Good for you, but in fairness to Daved, I don’t think he called all union workers un-educated slackers. 

  • Anonymous

    Good for you, but in fairness to Daved, I don’t think he called all union workers un-educated slackers. 

  • Anonymous

    Good for you, but in fairness to Daved, I don’t think he called all union workers un-educated slackers. 

  • Anonymous

    Good for you, but in fairness to Daved, I don’t think he called all union workers un-educated slackers. 

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    Public workers do not get “higher than average wages and benefits”.  That’s a myth being used to confuse people. 

    Your comments about American vs. Chinese labor is simplistic and ignores that Chinese workers work for about $2/day.  That is why nearly everything is made in China.  You are comparing apples to oranges.

  • Anonymous

    “The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World . . .”

    Really?

  • Anonymous

    “The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World . . .”

    Really?

  • Anonymous

    “The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World . . .”

    Really?

  • Anonymous

    “The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World . . .”

    Really?

  • Anonymous

    “The unions built this state and country and made it the envy of the World . . .”

    Really?

  • Anonymous

    “Testimony continued well past 9 p.m.” and apparently well past the bedtimes of some of the people pictured sleeping in the headline photograph.

  • Anonymous

    “Testimony continued well past 9 p.m.” and apparently well past the bedtimes of some of the people pictured sleeping in the headline photograph.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Sleeper4amoment Tim Bickford

    Honorable members of society pay the bills they run up.  It is something less then Honorable that seeks to pass their bills on to someone else and find a scapegoat to blame as they hide their own inadequacies.  It is that simple.  The proponents of this bill have lied their way around every corner.  They don’t want to pay their fair share.  They have made outrageous claims about being forced to support things they don’t want to support.  They have not supported anything that a member does except pay their fair portion of the costs of negotiations and representation.  

    All the rhetoric is glorified oral dysentery.  No substance just a few sound bites mixed with a solution that is foul.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/Sleeper4amoment Tim Bickford

    Honorable members of society pay the bills they run up.  It is something less then Honorable that seeks to pass their bills on to someone else and find a scapegoat to blame as they hide their own inadequacies.  It is that simple.  The proponents of this bill have lied their way around every corner.  They don’t want to pay their fair share.  They have made outrageous claims about being forced to support things they don’t want to support.  They have not supported anything that a member does except pay their fair portion of the costs of negotiations and representation.  

    All the rhetoric is glorified oral dysentery.  No substance just a few sound bites mixed with a solution that is foul.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/Sleeper4amoment Tim Bickford

    Honorable members of society pay the bills they run up.  It is something less then Honorable that seeks to pass their bills on to someone else and find a scapegoat to blame as they hide their own inadequacies.  It is that simple.  The proponents of this bill have lied their way around every corner.  They don’t want to pay their fair share.  They have made outrageous claims about being forced to support things they don’t want to support.  They have not supported anything that a member does except pay their fair portion of the costs of negotiations and representation.  

    All the rhetoric is glorified oral dysentery.  No substance just a few sound bites mixed with a solution that is foul.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/Sleeper4amoment Tim Bickford

    Honorable members of society pay the bills they run up.  It is something less then Honorable that seeks to pass their bills on to someone else and find a scapegoat to blame as they hide their own inadequacies.  It is that simple.  The proponents of this bill have lied their way around every corner.  They don’t want to pay their fair share.  They have made outrageous claims about being forced to support things they don’t want to support.  They have not supported anything that a member does except pay their fair portion of the costs of negotiations and representation.  

    All the rhetoric is glorified oral dysentery.  No substance just a few sound bites mixed with a solution that is foul.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/Sleeper4amoment Tim Bickford

    Honorable members of society pay the bills they run up.  It is something less then Honorable that seeks to pass their bills on to someone else and find a scapegoat to blame as they hide their own inadequacies.  It is that simple.  The proponents of this bill have lied their way around every corner.  They don’t want to pay their fair share.  They have made outrageous claims about being forced to support things they don’t want to support.  They have not supported anything that a member does except pay their fair portion of the costs of negotiations and representation.  

    All the rhetoric is glorified oral dysentery.  No substance just a few sound bites mixed with a solution that is foul.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/Sleeper4amoment Tim Bickford

    Honorable members of society pay the bills they run up.  It is something less then Honorable that seeks to pass their bills on to someone else and find a scapegoat to blame as they hide their own inadequacies.  It is that simple.  The proponents of this bill have lied their way around every corner.  They don’t want to pay their fair share.  They have made outrageous claims about being forced to support things they don’t want to support.  They have not supported anything that a member does except pay their fair portion of the costs of negotiations and representation.  

    All the rhetoric is glorified oral dysentery.  No substance just a few sound bites mixed with a solution that is foul.   

  • http://www.facebook.com/Sleeper4amoment Tim Bickford

    Honorable members of society pay the bills they run up.  It is something less then Honorable that seeks to pass their bills on to someone else and find a scapegoat to blame as they hide their own inadequacies.  It is that simple.  The proponents of this bill have lied their way around every corner.  They don’t want to pay their fair share.  They have made outrageous claims about being forced to support things they don’t want to support.  They have not supported anything that a member does except pay their fair portion of the costs of negotiations and representation.  

    All the rhetoric is glorified oral dysentery.  No substance just a few sound bites mixed with a solution that is foul.   

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    The democrats are going to hate this! This is the money they have used to control this state for 3 decades! How dare you take it from them, HOW DARE YOU!

  • Anonymous

    Please stop with the cracks about spelling and grammar problems in posts. It is juvenile and does not help the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    Please stop with the cracks about spelling and grammar problems in posts. It is juvenile and does not help the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    Please stop with the cracks about spelling and grammar problems in posts. It is juvenile and does not help the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    Please stop with the cracks about spelling and grammar problems in posts. It is juvenile and does not help the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    Please stop with the cracks about spelling and grammar problems in posts. It is juvenile and does not help the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    Please stop with the cracks about spelling and grammar problems in posts. It is juvenile and does not help the discussion.

  • Anonymous

    Please stop with the cracks about spelling and grammar problems in posts. It is juvenile and does not help the discussion.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OPAW6MFKY2SIYUQYNRYFVIR3V4 Retiree

    The Unions were great back many years ago, but now are too problem causing. jobs leave the Country to get away from Unions. If the Union people want the Unions then they should support all the people loosing jobs going out of the Country. Fair is Fair.

  • Anonymous

     Unions resist changes to auto models that costs the union jobs. That includes design. The union was part of the reason the automakers were slow to change their models in order to compete with Nissan and Toyota just for example.

  • Anonymous

     Unions resist changes to auto models that costs the union jobs. That includes design. The union was part of the reason the automakers were slow to change their models in order to compete with Nissan and Toyota just for example.

  • Anonymous

     Unions resist changes to auto models that costs the union jobs. That includes design. The union was part of the reason the automakers were slow to change their models in order to compete with Nissan and Toyota just for example.

  • Anonymous

     Unions resist changes to auto models that costs the union jobs. That includes design. The union was part of the reason the automakers were slow to change their models in order to compete with Nissan and Toyota just for example.

  • Anonymous

     Unions resist changes to auto models that costs the union jobs. That includes design. The union was part of the reason the automakers were slow to change their models in order to compete with Nissan and Toyota just for example.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is keeping these 26% from joining the union and thus being able to vote.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is keeping these 26% from joining the union and thus being able to vote.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is keeping these 26% from joining the union and thus being able to vote.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is keeping these 26% from joining the union and thus being able to vote.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is keeping these 26% from joining the union and thus being able to vote.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is keeping these 26% from joining the union and thus being able to vote.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is keeping these 26% from joining the union and thus being able to vote.

  • Anonymous

    Nothing is keeping these 26% from joining the union and thus being able to vote.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    Read Tom Peters book about the railroad industry to see how beauracratic unions can make things. I am all for fair labor and good working conditions and benefits and decent wages and free donuts and all the perks but when an electrician cannot move a circuit and waits 3 hours until the plumber removes a pipe that is placed next to the wall  and the carpenter is held up to do finish work, that is where the union must pass the cost of doing business to the customer.  So the accountants decide to off shore the work to Malaysia because they can do the work over there for pennies on the dollar. Quality? Anyone say quality? We will burn that bridge when we get to it.

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union.

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union.

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union.

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union.

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
    Federal employees are paid on average about $11k more than private sector for same work.

    These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and
    other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs.
    $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    Also from the New York Times.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/private-vs-public-sector-pay/
    numbers nationally for state and local public workers. As you see on average public sector workers have higher salaries than the private sector. That said, I am not sure that is true in Maine and the numbers here are only averages.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
    Federal employees are paid on average about $11k more than private sector for same work.

    These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and
    other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs.
    $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    Also from the New York Times.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/private-vs-public-sector-pay/
    numbers nationally for state and local public workers. As you see on average public sector workers have higher salaries than the private sector. That said, I am not sure that is true in Maine and the numbers here are only averages.

  • Anonymous

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm
    Federal employees are paid on average about $11k more than private sector for same work.

    These salary figures do not include the value of health, pension and
    other benefits, which averaged $40,785 per federal employee in 2008 vs.
    $9,882 per private worker, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    Also from the New York Times.

    http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/private-vs-public-sector-pay/
    numbers nationally for state and local public workers. As you see on average public sector workers have higher salaries than the private sector. That said, I am not sure that is true in Maine and the numbers here are only averages.

  • Anonymous

    The only one killing unions, is unions. They would be a damn fine thing if they would police themselves, get rid of the lazy, the thieves and those that feel they are owed a job. I know these people are a very small percentage of the members, but there are enough of them to do harm to any company that has to deal with them.  Unions did build this country, but that was yesterday, when everybody had pride in their work and made a good wage for it, not today when many have pride in the wage they make and how little work they do for it.
     

  • Anonymous

    The only one killing unions, is unions. They would be a damn fine thing if they would police themselves, get rid of the lazy, the thieves and those that feel they are owed a job. I know these people are a very small percentage of the members, but there are enough of them to do harm to any company that has to deal with them.  Unions did build this country, but that was yesterday, when everybody had pride in their work and made a good wage for it, not today when many have pride in the wage they make and how little work they do for it.
     

  • Anonymous

    The only one killing unions, is unions. They would be a damn fine thing if they would police themselves, get rid of the lazy, the thieves and those that feel they are owed a job. I know these people are a very small percentage of the members, but there are enough of them to do harm to any company that has to deal with them.  Unions did build this country, but that was yesterday, when everybody had pride in their work and made a good wage for it, not today when many have pride in the wage they make and how little work they do for it.
     

  • Anonymous

    The only one killing unions, is unions. They would be a damn fine thing if they would police themselves, get rid of the lazy, the thieves and those that feel they are owed a job. I know these people are a very small percentage of the members, but there are enough of them to do harm to any company that has to deal with them.  Unions did build this country, but that was yesterday, when everybody had pride in their work and made a good wage for it, not today when many have pride in the wage they make and how little work they do for it.
     

  • Anonymous

    The only one killing unions, is unions. They would be a damn fine thing if they would police themselves, get rid of the lazy, the thieves and those that feel they are owed a job. I know these people are a very small percentage of the members, but there are enough of them to do harm to any company that has to deal with them.  Unions did build this country, but that was yesterday, when everybody had pride in their work and made a good wage for it, not today when many have pride in the wage they make and how little work they do for it.
     

  • Anonymous

    The only one killing unions, is unions. They would be a damn fine thing if they would police themselves, get rid of the lazy, the thieves and those that feel they are owed a job. I know these people are a very small percentage of the members, but there are enough of them to do harm to any company that has to deal with them.  Unions did build this country, but that was yesterday, when everybody had pride in their work and made a good wage for it, not today when many have pride in the wage they make and how little work they do for it.
     

  • Anonymous

    The unions have been part of the problem with the country. THE UNION WORKERS HAVE NOT.
     
    Are the designers of cars unionized? I have no clue, they may be or not. This is beside the point, if they are unionized do you think the union would have stepped in and protested the stupid designs?
     
    The lack of investment in older infrastructure; not doing repairs on buildings, not upgrading capital equipment, and so forth is the short sighted business school paradigm. It is very common in corporate and government management.
     
    It is far more expensive to shut down an operating plant and upgrade the building and equipment than it is to just build new and move into the new facility, especially with the tax implications. Following that with the fact that it is less expensive to build in third world countries, there are far fewer laws on how the business is run and labor costs are far lower going overseas makes perfect business sense.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have been part of the problem with the country. THE UNION WORKERS HAVE NOT.
     
    Are the designers of cars unionized? I have no clue, they may be or not. This is beside the point, if they are unionized do you think the union would have stepped in and protested the stupid designs?
     
    The lack of investment in older infrastructure; not doing repairs on buildings, not upgrading capital equipment, and so forth is the short sighted business school paradigm. It is very common in corporate and government management.
     
    It is far more expensive to shut down an operating plant and upgrade the building and equipment than it is to just build new and move into the new facility, especially with the tax implications. Following that with the fact that it is less expensive to build in third world countries, there are far fewer laws on how the business is run and labor costs are far lower going overseas makes perfect business sense.

  • Anonymous

    Because the unions usually support Democrats?

  • Anonymous

    Because the unions usually support Democrats?

  • Anonymous

    Because the unions usually support Democrats?

  • Anonymous

    Because the unions usually support Democrats?

  • Anonymous

    Because the unions usually support Democrats?

  • Anonymous

    Because the unions usually support Democrats?

  • Anonymous

    Because the unions usually support Democrats?

  • Anonymous

    Teachers, like all government employees, are paid out of the public coffers and is probably their only income. If the public does not pay for their healthcare insurance who will?
     
    If the insurance is not paid by the employer, their salaries will be higher, probably by more than the cost to the government to just pay for the insurance.
     
    Health insurance has become a standard benefit of many jobs and would be extremely hard to take away the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Teachers, like all government employees, are paid out of the public coffers and is probably their only income. If the public does not pay for their healthcare insurance who will?
     
    If the insurance is not paid by the employer, their salaries will be higher, probably by more than the cost to the government to just pay for the insurance.
     
    Health insurance has become a standard benefit of many jobs and would be extremely hard to take away the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Teachers, like all government employees, are paid out of the public coffers and is probably their only income. If the public does not pay for their healthcare insurance who will?
     
    If the insurance is not paid by the employer, their salaries will be higher, probably by more than the cost to the government to just pay for the insurance.
     
    Health insurance has become a standard benefit of many jobs and would be extremely hard to take away the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Teachers, like all government employees, are paid out of the public coffers and is probably their only income. If the public does not pay for their healthcare insurance who will?
     
    If the insurance is not paid by the employer, their salaries will be higher, probably by more than the cost to the government to just pay for the insurance.
     
    Health insurance has become a standard benefit of many jobs and would be extremely hard to take away the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Teachers, like all government employees, are paid out of the public coffers and is probably their only income. If the public does not pay for their healthcare insurance who will?
     
    If the insurance is not paid by the employer, their salaries will be higher, probably by more than the cost to the government to just pay for the insurance.
     
    Health insurance has become a standard benefit of many jobs and would be extremely hard to take away the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Teachers, like all government employees, are paid out of the public coffers and is probably their only income. If the public does not pay for their healthcare insurance who will?
     
    If the insurance is not paid by the employer, their salaries will be higher, probably by more than the cost to the government to just pay for the insurance.
     
    Health insurance has become a standard benefit of many jobs and would be extremely hard to take away the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Teachers, like all government employees, are paid out of the public coffers and is probably their only income. If the public does not pay for their healthcare insurance who will?
     
    If the insurance is not paid by the employer, their salaries will be higher, probably by more than the cost to the government to just pay for the insurance.
     
    Health insurance has become a standard benefit of many jobs and would be extremely hard to take away the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    Teachers, like all government employees, are paid out of the public coffers and is probably their only income. If the public does not pay for their healthcare insurance who will?
     
    If the insurance is not paid by the employer, their salaries will be higher, probably by more than the cost to the government to just pay for the insurance.
     
    Health insurance has become a standard benefit of many jobs and would be extremely hard to take away the benefit.

  • Anonymous

    When the U of Maine faculty unionized in 1980 a federal court ruled that faculty could not be forced to pay dues unless the union opened its books. The union never acted. I wonder why.  Could it be that the records would show that political donations were made exclusively to Democratic candidates?  Why should Republicans be forced to support the lefties?  

  • Anonymous

    When the U of Maine faculty unionized in 1980 a federal court ruled that faculty could not be forced to pay dues unless the union opened its books. The union never acted. I wonder why.  Could it be that the records would show that political donations were made exclusively to Democratic candidates?  Why should Republicans be forced to support the lefties?  

  • Anonymous

    When the U of Maine faculty unionized in 1980 a federal court ruled that faculty could not be forced to pay dues unless the union opened its books. The union never acted. I wonder why.  Could it be that the records would show that political donations were made exclusively to Democratic candidates?  Why should Republicans be forced to support the lefties?  

  • Anonymous

    When the U of Maine faculty unionized in 1980 a federal court ruled that faculty could not be forced to pay dues unless the union opened its books. The union never acted. I wonder why.  Could it be that the records would show that political donations were made exclusively to Democratic candidates?  Why should Republicans be forced to support the lefties?  

  • Anonymous

    When the U of Maine faculty unionized in 1980 a federal court ruled that faculty could not be forced to pay dues unless the union opened its books. The union never acted. I wonder why.  Could it be that the records would show that political donations were made exclusively to Democratic candidates?  Why should Republicans be forced to support the lefties?  

  • Anonymous

    When the U of Maine faculty unionized in 1980 a federal court ruled that faculty could not be forced to pay dues unless the union opened its books. The union never acted. I wonder why.  Could it be that the records would show that political donations were made exclusively to Democratic candidates?  Why should Republicans be forced to support the lefties?  

  • Anonymous

    When the U of Maine faculty unionized in 1980 a federal court ruled that faculty could not be forced to pay dues unless the union opened its books. The union never acted. I wonder why.  Could it be that the records would show that political donations were made exclusively to Democratic candidates?  Why should Republicans be forced to support the lefties?  

  • Anonymous

    When the U of Maine faculty unionized in 1980 a federal court ruled that faculty could not be forced to pay dues unless the union opened its books. The union never acted. I wonder why.  Could it be that the records would show that political donations were made exclusively to Democratic candidates?  Why should Republicans be forced to support the lefties?  

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    The unions have to evolve, if they do not they will become extinct.
     
    Face it, there is more than enough blame to go around, accept yours.

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    I am no fan of unions but would like to say what I believe is the problem with unemployment and our jobs being sent overseas.

    This problem is two-fold. The first part is that corporate lobbyists fought for cheeper labor and bought off our politicians to send our jobs to other countries that American workers have no chance of competing against because of lax safety rules and people living in poverty that are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. So, politicians sold us down the river during Clintons’ and Bushs’ presidency. (all truth)

    The second part is that banks hired lobbyists and lawyers to revamp how they would lend money to people who could never afford to pay it back. Again, politicians were paid off to write these revamping rules into law. Banks in turn would loan money to people by “fudging” their incomes on the application forms (seen it firsthand). That in turn started a housing bubble that grew and grew until it burst. Now is where things get a little more complicated -with bailing banks out (with taxpayer money) once this bubble did burst. Banks, rather than work with the borrowers, reposessed the failing homeowners properties instead of working with them (helping them). So, here we have a perfect storm in the brewing. Foreclosed properties are now flooding the market and are worth much less than what was owed -and our homes are also worth much less because of the glut of  reposessed houses on the market. That in turn puts carpenters, plumbers, contractors, cement manufacturers, lumber yards, etc. etc. etc. out of business and out of work, in turn making for even more reposessions and even higher unemployment. This is a death spiral and won’t end anytime soon and will get much worse before it can even begin to get better.

    So, you see, the greed of the corporate world, the banking world and the politicians all came in to play here. So, now we are all losing money, losing our homes and losing our jobs because of greed and extremely unwise and unpatriotic practices to help the greedy get more.

    (please excuse my spelling errors, I know there are a few.)

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    What’s keeping the union from allowing everyone to vote on the contract
    that they pay for & have to compy with?

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    If what you say is true, then working, poor and retired people who support unions will inevitably see their taxes increase to support the ‘wage & benefit’ gains the unions inevitably get(bargain) for members. 

    This is testimony to the political power of unions and their ability to force us to pay more and more for government.

    The result is an endless conveyor belt of more and more ‘wage & benefit’ gains at the expense of more efficient government and the ever more burdened taxpayer.

    Boy, wouldn’t I love to see a union come to the bargaining table saying ‘our members saved you X dollars last year; and increased the test scores in your district…We think we should be rewarded’    

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    BUZZ…every teacher I knew had a summer job and often one after school–Hannefords, coaching, etc.  When TEACHER MAGAZINE was first marketed in Maine, I was surprised to see that teachers with an  overall income of $74k were targeted…..and apparently there are a lot of them.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    It does seem like the Democrats are the tools of the SEIU, and NEA; or is it the other way around? The amount of money and campaigning support these two unions give democrats, it might as well be Nazi Germany all over again.

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    Unions had nothing to do with the fabled Maine work ethic; it was independent farmers and fisherman.  ..or have you been staring at that mural too long?

  • Anonymous

    I want to be in one of those auto workers’ unions where you sit in a room all day, and collect a $50k paycheck because of some union clause….WHEEEEEE!

  • http://katahdin.myopenid.com/ FrankC

    kudos !

  • Anonymous

    still stalking public officials?

  • Anonymous

    still stalking public officials?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t have a dog in this fight but I do get a kick outa the 2 guys sawing logs in the picture.

  • Anonymous

    It’s all about union busting and appealing to peoples greed. If someone doesn’t want union protection, go get a non-union job. Simple. No argument.

    Scratch a right-winger and discover a hypocrite.

  • http://katahdin.myopenid.com/ FrankC

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    As Dan Billings, Chief Counsel to Gov. LePage, made clear, should LD309 become law, the administration has no intent on negotiating separate contracts for the roughly 2,700 State employees who are not members of the union. ***********************************************

    so that means they get the same offer as unionized employees, right?

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    Unfortunately there is no non-union govt and an union govt to spur competition as in the ‘real’ world.

    One of the reasons that public sector jobs have traditionally been non union.

    So what is the use of civil service and all that? ***************************************Even if one is hired into a Civil Service position, the person need not join the union.  They are not dependent upon one another.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    BZZZ… What in he11 does summer jobs for teachers have to do with what I said?
     
    I do know that many teachers have jobs outside of school. Before I met my wife she worked at a couple of places as a waitress, and has done other jobs since I became disabled. On the other hand many of the teachers with families and a few years of experience, and some that don’t, find it possible to live on their salary.
     
    I have no idea when Teacher Magazine was first marketed in Maine, in fact I have never heard of it and cannot find it with a fast internet search. If that was before the last decade or so it was an extremely small market.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Want to see the state union at work? Go into any DHHS location and see how many people are “working”. Ah yes, our tax dollars at “work”.

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • Anonymous

    Who says that it is a new aristocracy and not a resurgence of an old one?
     
    There have been wing nuts saying this for decades, could they have been right?

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Someone wrote below, “socialist, left-wing entitlement mentality.”
     
    I laughed because I’m a left-wing socialist.
     
      Hard not to be if you’ve lived for a while on the other side of the pond and visit your friends and relatives over there every year or so.  It helps if you read their newspapers, too, and see that they are scared to death of the American corporate/military machine which has borrowed and then stolen even more from American workers. Europeans know that when the US defaults on its debt, they will be pulled down with us.
     
    If you’ve read any European newspapers lately, don’t you find what they say about the professional robbers in our country to be rather depressing?
     
    My wife’s brother-in-law rents a castle down in Italy in the summer where his kids (with PhDs that they earned without borrowing) and grandchildren gather for a few weeks. He does this on a teacher’s retirement earned in a socialist country.
     
    Another buddy of mine worked in a railroad station, sweeping up and being helpful in general. Now retired, he visits us from time to time when he and his wife aren’t traveling around in some other part of the world. No one stole his retirement package because he lives in a socialist country. Every time I visit him over there he has a new car.

    Can’t you hear him laugh if I spit on his new car, pointed at his new house and then accused him of being a left-wing socialist?
     
    Does their government pay for all these good things? Of course not. The left-wing socialist teachers and floor sweepers pay for their own retirement with higher taxes than we have here. The difference is that their wages are higher, they do not live under a debilitating war economy as we do, and they have regulations in place that keep financial cartels from looting the peoples’ treasury or privatizing their retirement funds.
     
    For the past four days I’ve been a guest instructor in a Maine high school.  I told the kids that if I were just getting out of high school, I’d spend the next half year or so with a knapsack on my shoulders, wandering about in Europe talking with the young people who live there.

     This is what is called getting an eye-opening education.
     
     If every kid in America were able to live in northern Europe for one year, when they came home and voted guess which political party would cease to exist?
     
    Every time my wife and I come back to the states and see the rusty cars, fallen down barns, and boarded up store windows in this state that is Open For Business, we shake our heads and wish that all our friends could have just a taste of that left-wing socialist lifestyle.  If I were 19 instead of 75 with a mortgage, we would be out of here.
     
    We’d probably come back to visit friends in the summer because Maine is really a great place to vacation.
     
    From what we read in the letters on newspaper blogs, Maine looks even better if you’ve never been anywhere else.

    The humble Farmer

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Someone wrote below, “socialist, left-wing entitlement mentality.”
     
    I laughed because I’m a left-wing socialist.
     
      Hard not to be if you’ve lived for a while on the other side of the pond and visit your friends and relatives over there every year or so.  It helps if you read their newspapers, too, and see that they are scared to death of the American corporate/military machine which has borrowed and then stolen even more from American workers. Europeans know that when the US defaults on its debt, they will be pulled down with us.
     
    If you’ve read any European newspapers lately, don’t you find what they say about the professional robbers in our country to be rather depressing?
     
    My wife’s brother-in-law rents a castle down in Italy in the summer where his kids (with PhDs that they earned without borrowing) and grandchildren gather for a few weeks. He does this on a teacher’s retirement earned in a socialist country.
     
    Another buddy of mine worked in a railroad station, sweeping up and being helpful in general. Now retired, he visits us from time to time when he and his wife aren’t traveling around in some other part of the world. No one stole his retirement package because he lives in a socialist country. Every time I visit him over there he has a new car.

    Can’t you hear him laugh if I spit on his new car, pointed at his new house and then accused him of being a left-wing socialist?
     
    Does their government pay for all these good things? Of course not. The left-wing socialist teachers and floor sweepers pay for their own retirement with higher taxes than we have here. The difference is that their wages are higher, they do not live under a debilitating war economy as we do, and they have regulations in place that keep financial cartels from looting the peoples’ treasury or privatizing their retirement funds.
     
    For the past four days I’ve been a guest instructor in a Maine high school.  I told the kids that if I were just getting out of high school, I’d spend the next half year or so with a knapsack on my shoulders, wandering about in Europe talking with the young people who live there.

     This is what is called getting an eye-opening education.
     
     If every kid in America were able to live in northern Europe for one year, when they came home and voted guess which political party would cease to exist?
     
    Every time my wife and I come back to the states and see the rusty cars, fallen down barns, and boarded up store windows in this state that is Open For Business, we shake our heads and wish that all our friends could have just a taste of that left-wing socialist lifestyle.  If I were 19 instead of 75 with a mortgage, we would be out of here.
     
    We’d probably come back to visit friends in the summer because Maine is really a great place to vacation.
     
    From what we read in the letters on newspaper blogs, Maine looks even better if you’ve never been anywhere else.

    The humble Farmer

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Someone wrote below, “socialist, left-wing entitlement mentality.”
     
    I laughed because I’m a left-wing socialist.
     
      Hard not to be if you’ve lived for a while on the other side of the pond and visit your friends and relatives over there every year or so.  It helps if you read their newspapers, too, and see that they are scared to death of the American corporate/military machine which has borrowed and then stolen even more from American workers. Europeans know that when the US defaults on its debt, they will be pulled down with us.
     
    If you’ve read any European newspapers lately, don’t you find what they say about the professional robbers in our country to be rather depressing?
     
    My wife’s brother-in-law rents a castle down in Italy in the summer where his kids (with PhDs that they earned without borrowing) and grandchildren gather for a few weeks. He does this on a teacher’s retirement earned in a socialist country.
     
    Another buddy of mine worked in a railroad station, sweeping up and being helpful in general. Now retired, he visits us from time to time when he and his wife aren’t traveling around in some other part of the world. No one stole his retirement package because he lives in a socialist country. Every time I visit him over there he has a new car.

    Can’t you hear him laugh if I spit on his new car, pointed at his new house and then accused him of being a left-wing socialist?
     
    Does their government pay for all these good things? Of course not. The left-wing socialist teachers and floor sweepers pay for their own retirement with higher taxes than we have here. The difference is that their wages are higher, they do not live under a debilitating war economy as we do, and they have regulations in place that keep financial cartels from looting the peoples’ treasury or privatizing their retirement funds.
     
    For the past four days I’ve been a guest instructor in a Maine high school.  I told the kids that if I were just getting out of high school, I’d spend the next half year or so with a knapsack on my shoulders, wandering about in Europe talking with the young people who live there.

     This is what is called getting an eye-opening education.
     
     If every kid in America were able to live in northern Europe for one year, when they came home and voted guess which political party would cease to exist?
     
    Every time my wife and I come back to the states and see the rusty cars, fallen down barns, and boarded up store windows in this state that is Open For Business, we shake our heads and wish that all our friends could have just a taste of that left-wing socialist lifestyle.  If I were 19 instead of 75 with a mortgage, we would be out of here.
     
    We’d probably come back to visit friends in the summer because Maine is really a great place to vacation.
     
    From what we read in the letters on newspaper blogs, Maine looks even better if you’ve never been anywhere else.

    The humble Farmer

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Someone wrote below, “socialist, left-wing entitlement mentality.”
     
    I laughed because I’m a left-wing socialist.
     
      Hard not to be if you’ve lived for a while on the other side of the pond and visit your friends and relatives over there every year or so.  It helps if you read their newspapers, too, and see that they are scared to death of the American corporate/military machine which has borrowed and then stolen even more from American workers. Europeans know that when the US defaults on its debt, they will be pulled down with us.
     
    If you’ve read any European newspapers lately, don’t you find what they say about the professional robbers in our country to be rather depressing?
     
    My wife’s brother-in-law rents a castle down in Italy in the summer where his kids (with PhDs that they earned without borrowing) and grandchildren gather for a few weeks. He does this on a teacher’s retirement earned in a socialist country.
     
    Another buddy of mine worked in a railroad station, sweeping up and being helpful in general. Now retired, he visits us from time to time when he and his wife aren’t traveling around in some other part of the world. No one stole his retirement package because he lives in a socialist country. Every time I visit him over there he has a new car.

    Can’t you hear him laugh if I spit on his new car, pointed at his new house and then accused him of being a left-wing socialist?
     
    Does their government pay for all these good things? Of course not. The left-wing socialist teachers and floor sweepers pay for their own retirement with higher taxes than we have here. The difference is that their wages are higher, they do not live under a debilitating war economy as we do, and they have regulations in place that keep financial cartels from looting the peoples’ treasury or privatizing their retirement funds.
     
    For the past four days I’ve been a guest instructor in a Maine high school.  I told the kids that if I were just getting out of high school, I’d spend the next half year or so with a knapsack on my shoulders, wandering about in Europe talking with the young people who live there.

     This is what is called getting an eye-opening education.
     
     If every kid in America were able to live in northern Europe for one year, when they came home and voted guess which political party would cease to exist?
     
    Every time my wife and I come back to the states and see the rusty cars, fallen down barns, and boarded up store windows in this state that is Open For Business, we shake our heads and wish that all our friends could have just a taste of that left-wing socialist lifestyle.  If I were 19 instead of 75 with a mortgage, we would be out of here.
     
    We’d probably come back to visit friends in the summer because Maine is really a great place to vacation.
     
    From what we read in the letters on newspaper blogs, Maine looks even better if you’ve never been anywhere else.

    The humble Farmer

  • http://twitter.com/TheHumbleFarmer Robert Karl Skoglund

    Someone wrote below, “socialist, left-wing entitlement mentality.”
     
    I laughed because I’m a left-wing socialist.
     
      Hard not to be if you’ve lived for a while on the other side of the pond and visit your friends and relatives over there every year or so.  It helps if you read their newspapers, too, and see that they are scared to death of the American corporate/military machine which has borrowed and then stolen even more from American workers. Europeans know that when the US defaults on its debt, they will be pulled down with us.
     
    If you’ve read any European newspapers lately, don’t you find what they say about the professional robbers in our country to be rather depressing?
     
    My wife’s brother-in-law rents a castle down in Italy in the summer where his kids (with PhDs that they earned without borrowing) and grandchildren gather for a few weeks. He does this on a teacher’s retirement earned in a socialist country.
     
    Another buddy of mine worked in a railroad station, sweeping up and being helpful in general. Now retired, he visits us from time to time when he and his wife aren’t traveling around in some other part of the world. No one stole his retirement package because he lives in a socialist country. Every time I visit him over there he has a new car.

    Can’t you hear him laugh if I spit on his new car, pointed at his new house and then accused him of being a left-wing socialist?
     
    Does their government pay for all these good things? Of course not. The left-wing socialist teachers and floor sweepers pay for their own retirement with higher taxes than we have here. The difference is that their wages are higher, they do not live under a debilitating war economy as we do, and they have regulations in place that keep financial cartels from looting the peoples’ treasury or privatizing their retirement funds.
     
    For the past four days I’ve been a guest instructor in a Maine high school.  I told the kids that if I were just getting out of high school, I’d spend the next half year or so with a knapsack on my shoulders, wandering about in Europe talking with the young people who live there.

     This is what is called getting an eye-opening education.
     
     If every kid in America were able to live in northern Europe for one year, when they came home and voted guess which political party would cease to exist?
     
    Every time my wife and I come back to the states and see the rusty cars, fallen down barns, and boarded up store windows in this state that is Open For Business, we shake our heads and wish that all our friends could have just a taste of that left-wing socialist lifestyle.  If I were 19 instead of 75 with a mortgage, we would be out of here.
     
    We’d probably come back to visit friends in the summer because Maine is really a great place to vacation.
     
    From what we read in the letters on newspaper blogs, Maine looks even better if you’ve never been anywhere else.

    The humble Farmer

  • Anonymous

    Regardless of ones stand on Unions, fair is fair.  If you don’t want to be represented by the Union and not pay fees, then that option should be available however, if the Union negotiates a contract with better benefits and wages , for instance, those same people should not be eligible to receive those Union negotiated contract agreements.  Simple.  

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    Unions are not bad, at least the members are not. They even had, and could again, have their purpose. The members have to regain their control of employee, just like the tax payer has to take control of our elected government employees

  • Anonymous

    You know Bill Clinton?

    You are just deflecting his statements. engage him maybe you both learn something.

  • Anonymous

    You know Bill Clinton?

    You are just deflecting his statements. engage him maybe you both learn something.

  • Anonymous

    You know Bill Clinton?

    You are just deflecting his statements. engage him maybe you both learn something.

  • Anonymous

    You know Bill Clinton?

    You are just deflecting his statements. engage him maybe you both learn something.

  • Anonymous

    You know Bill Clinton?

    You are just deflecting his statements. engage him maybe you both learn something.

  • Anonymous

    You know Bill Clinton?

    You are just deflecting his statements. engage him maybe you both learn something.

  • Anonymous

    You know Bill Clinton?

    You are just deflecting his statements. engage him maybe you both learn something.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    The simple question is should people that do not want to belong to a union be forced by law to pay union dues?  I think not and most logical people would agree.  Therefore, I am wondering what is all the fuss about?  We have better things to do than argue about keeping a “wrong” law on the books. ***************************************************You are correct that it is a simple question.  However, there is not such a simple answer because there are caveats in the law as written.  when you work in the private sector in a non-union job, you “negotiate” your rate of pay.  This is really only temporary, because most negotiations last only until the employer wants to change the terms.  You can negotiate for a rate of pay of, say, $20./hr. for up to 40 hrs./week.  A year later, your employer can drop your rate to $10./hr. and there’s no recourse available to you except to give notice if you don’t like it.  If you are hired for a job that is represented by a union, and you join that union (or not) then the union negotiates the salary and other terms of the contract for you, and that contract lasts usually 3 years.  Your employer cannot arbitrarily cut your rate of pay or refuse to follow the terms of the contract while that contract period is in effect.  If your employer violates the terms, then you have a legal remedy.  If you can find an employer who will enter into and sign a contract like those that exist in union jobs, more power to you—just be sure to let me know who the total sucker is.I am sure that logical people would also agree that people should pay for any benefits they receive since those benefits were negotiated FOR them.  Certainly, if people do not wish to join the union that represents his/her fellow employees and they do not wish to pay for representation, then they should not benefit in any way from that representation.  They should negotiate their own contract with the employer and pay their own fees to a lawyer when the employer breaks the terms of the contract, or the employee breaks the terms, thus causing the employer to sue the employee for breach.

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Unions were necessary to force the mine owners be responsible in the past and they may have a place in the future, if they evolve into something relevant

  • Anonymous

    Please… the 26% know that even if they join the union, if they vote their vote will mean nothing, the union officials will make the vote go where they want it to.

    They also know if they make too many waves a person with a broken nose will visit them and “discuss” the issue. It does happen, I’ve seen it.

  • Anonymous

    Please… the 26% know that even if they join the union, if they vote their vote will mean nothing, the union officials will make the vote go where they want it to.

    They also know if they make too many waves a person with a broken nose will visit them and “discuss” the issue. It does happen, I’ve seen it.

  • Anonymous

    Please… the 26% know that even if they join the union, if they vote their vote will mean nothing, the union officials will make the vote go where they want it to.

    They also know if they make too many waves a person with a broken nose will visit them and “discuss” the issue. It does happen, I’ve seen it.

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    But if the State wants to get rid of the union would they not make the working conditions better for the nonunion workers, pay them a little more and find a way to make their productivity increase. To encourage more union members leave the union?

  • Anonymous

    YAAAAAAAY go union. I was in unions for many years and never thought the union gave a sh1t about me. just used my money to campaign for Democrats.

    I do not see how union members can be so blind, the Democrats never cared about the working person.

  • Anonymous

    The uninitiated or the not yet indoctrinated?
     
    If you love Europe so much, what are you doing in St. George?

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    What a maroon.

  • Anonymous

    And another maroon.

  • Anonymous

    And another maroon.

  • Anonymous

    And another maroon.

  • Anonymous

    And another maroon.

  • Anonymous

    And another maroon.

  • Anonymous

    And another maroon.

  • Anonymous

    And another maroon.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    I would bet my life on that premise.

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    Som the unions and their bought politicians had nothing to do with it?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    You blame the share holders… you do realize that some of your retirement funds are in the corporation?

  • Anonymous

    I don’t understand your comment. 

    If investors or shareholders had the best interest of their companies in mind, they would not be interested in short-term gains.  Instead, they would want to invest in the long term and be happy with modest returns.   Once the investors get their money out of a company it does any retirees no good and let’s not forget what happens when investors short sell a stock.

    As a matter of simple economics, the 401k system is destined to crash again like it did in 2008.  We cannot keep investing employee money in the same stocks / bonds / funds week after week after week.  There are not that many IPO’s issued, so where do the 401k funds go?  The bond markets? Maybe.  Some goes into the equity markets chasing the same stocks looking for the highest returns.  It’s a shell game.

    It will be really interesting to watch Wall Street and the GOP / Government as the boomers age and start to move their money from growth and other equity funds to bonds, government bonds and then cash.  When all that money leaves equity funds, the price of a lot of those stocks will fall.  It simply will happen.  The laws of supply and demand require it. 

    None of my retirement funds are invested in any corporation. Anyone who thinks 401k’s are for “our” benefit does not understand the financial industry. 401k’s and the continuous effort to privatize social security were designed to keep money flowing to Wall Street. Without money coming in every week from payroll contributions Wall Street so they can get their commissions and bonuses.

  • Anonymous

    I beg your pardon. You have confused socialist with fascism. From the book They Thought They Were Free..(Hitler’s reign of terror)

    Labor Power is SuppressedBecause the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

  • Anonymous

    I have always expected the small amount that I have in a 401K to become “invested” in t-bills by the Democrats and get lost just like the money that was in Social Security.
     
    What do you suggest people put their retirement money into? If all of the standard investments are out, what is left? Commodities? Metals? Real estate? Art?
     
    As I see it our economy has been a shell game since 1934, maybe far earlier, but going off the gold standard was when our economy was given to the government / banks.
     
    How will Social Security be worse being administrated by the private investors or the government investors?
     

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

BDN Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business
ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business