whizzles1 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I've worked for both union and non-union shops since 1966 and I found that union shop employees worked harder then the non-union workers. The non-union shops were full of brownnosers and squealers who were less interested in work and more interested in shit stirring. The bosses would have their flunkies watching everyone and if you took to long on a break you'd hear about it, kind of like communism. Scumbag conservatives want to take all worker rights away and support the corporate pigs.

ars62287 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Janitor for Secretary of State: $96,153.25Stationary Fireman for Dept of Corrections: $109,429.53Barber for the Dept of Corrections: $88,475.47Beautician (for real) for the Dept of Corrections: $75,563.32Painter for the Dept of Corrections: $92,832.48Laborer for the Dept of Transportation: $86,887.86These are real IL 2010 earnings, look it up, it's all public. And these crooks just got a 14% raise as our income tax increased 66% last yr to pay for it, dont get me started on their pensions

whistlewing (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Okay, just stop all this back and forth rallying of pro-union versus anti-union supporters. The reality is that both sides have lost. The long term is that owners of private companies and share holders of all the other companies, along with the workers for both companies have all lost. And Why....because a very large percentage of the jobs in manufacturing have now gone out of North America to other parts of the world, ie., CHINA. We are now no more than vendors of incoming foreign goods!

ResaFMkII (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@94lukepl That's the joke...

94lukepl (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

this was totally lifted from the life of brian!

MrAlsfan5 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thank goodness for unions. For those of you who disagree, every single benefit of any kind was obtained by the union movement.

LiberInterdico (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@Milomix 1.) Yes we can, its pretty easy to be a contractor. 2.) If you let "the government" take people's private property to give to others it will not go to "the average joe", it will be taken from the "average joe" to give to the wealthy. There is also no such thing as "free" someone pays for everything. So who is forced to work in the mines or as a septic worker while someone has a desk job for the same pay? How can you have an even share with uneven work?

Milomix (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@LiberInterdico We can't really expect everyone to start small businessees, can we? It would not meet the needs of the population or eceonomy. We could, however, give the means of production (including 'private property') back to the workers and every gets an even share. And free healthcare. And education. And a place to live. It would eradicate noth poverty and unemployment.

LiberInterdico (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@Milomix Step back a second and think about what you just said. "Negotiate a greater share", aka "More money". That is fine, this is capitalism. Capital owners incorporate into corporations to better negotiate a greater share of the wealth generated from the use of their private property. There is nothing stopping people from making their own business where they are both the owner and the worker, every small business (just about) starts that way.

Milomix (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@LiberInterdico No, Unions allow workers to negotiate a greater share of the fruits of their labours. we could always put the means of productiuon into the ownership of the workers and then we wouldn't need unions. What do you think, comrade?