Newt Gingrich: Be Anti-Labor Union, Win a Wii

Conservative Newt Gingrich is back, and he’s exploiting the Nintendo Wii for political gain.

By way of backstory, there is a pro-union bill, the Employee Free Choice Act, currently before the Congress. The Huffington Post reports that Gingrich views the legislation as "a mortal threat to American freedom."

(GP: Because, you know, rich guys and corporations should have all the power in our society.)

Speaking this week at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington D.C., Gingrich reminded attendees that they could register to win a free Wii by signing up for American Solutions, Gingrich’s new media campaign.

The Huff Post has a comment on the Wii giveaway from an unnamed union official:

Is this part of [new RNC chairman] Michael Steele’s hip-hop revolution? Or is being against working families so lame that they have to bribe kids with a Wii to do it?



  1. 0
    Good Lord says:

    Calling someone whose politcal opinions you disagree with a "communist" in this day and age is, frankly, pathetic. Why not call him a sinner, or a witch? You’d sound equally foolish.

    Crawl back into your hole.

  2. 0
    TheKingBoar says:



    So we should give that power to the modern day equivalent of the mafia? Unions rarely have their members’ best interests in mind. Most of the supposed increased wages are wasted on union dues, which the union presidents are too busy wasting on golf courses to actually look out for their members. Members who speak out against the unions are routinely silenced, albeit not as violently as you would be in the mafia. That’s sure a big improvement. I’d rather deal with a corporation myself; I’m actually skilled enough to negotiate my own wage on my own. Unions served a purpose once, but have run their course and should be soundly rejected by most Americans now that they are functionally obsolete.


    But wait, so opposing a bill that actually takes away employee rights is a bad thing?


    That bill would ELIMINATE an employee’s right to a secret ballot for a unionization vote. For those of you who are too stupid to figure it out, this means that if a workplace goes union, then those employees who vote against unionization are prone to retaliation. This is an intimidation tactic the unions want to coerce workers into saying they want to be unionized because they’re scared about being retaliated against. This is absolutely one of the dumbest ideas ever. How does it help workers if they don’t have a secret ballot? This is political payback to the unions as the Democrats would not have gotten elected without the union’s thuggish influence.


    Regardless, the editor has shown an astounding lack of reading comprehension as American Solutions is about far more than opposing one idiotic bill. It is an entire organization, with policies for a vast amount of issues. But no, let’s just cherry pick the one that the editor doesn’t like and spin it. And then to make this post even more laughable, you cite the Huffington Post. Michael Moore looks moderate compared to them.

  3. 0
    Paladyn says:

    Actually, mob-connected parasitic do-nothings should have all the power. Look, I can be snarky too 😀

    Labor unions need to die a quick death. They’re the major thing wrong with the U.S. Auto industry, and they do little more today than foster inefficiency and reward mediocrity. There’s something majorly wrong when a multi-million dollar shipment gets held up because the only "level 3 painter" a union shop has is out on vacation, and a "level 2 painter" isn’t "authorized" to dab some touchup paint over a scratch on a black box. There’s something majorly wrong when a piece of equipment breaks down on a construction project, a contractor is called in to fix it, and the union boss screams and ties everything up because he wants to take 2 weeks to make sure that no "union" shop in the area is capable of doing the work. There wasn’t, and the union boss didn’t allow the owner to fix the equipment until a union worker got paid $30/hr to stand around and watch the contractors. These aren’t hypothetical cases. The first happened to a former co-worker at a defense contractor, and the second happened to my Father.

  4. 0
    Valdearg says:

    …Really? REALLY? Communist?

    What, are you going to start calling Dennis "Comrade" from now on? You are rediculous.

    I, personally, like his tidbits, because, honestly, they add flavor to the site and they cause asshats like yourself to reveal yourselves to be nothing but a group of whiners and crybabies.

    "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Dennis made a Political Comment that I disagree with! He can’t do that on his site that he maintains! Waaaaaaaaaaa!"

    Honestly, get a life..


    Edit: Also, the site is called Gamepolitics.

    Now, Follow me closely, here. I know your fragile conservative mind needs to hear things in Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity’s Voice to register any kind of meaning, but..

    Newt Gingrich is involved in Politics, and he is using a Game System to attempt to meet his political goals..

    Game… Politics…. Game… Politics…. Ok, now you know the story is perfectly relevant to the site.

  5. 0
    foolkiller79 says:

    Hmm, between the GP comment interjected into the story and all the comments I see the union debate is as strong as ever.  So, here are my thoughts on it:

    I have worked both union jobs and non-union jobs.  In a union job I got a raise every so often without question.  It just happened.  It was the same raise we all got.  In my non-union jobs (one of which I have right now) raises were never guaranteed, but because I took personal responsibility, worked hard, put in extra hours when necessary, and never once said, "That’s not my job," I have received raises, and they were more, percentage-wise, than anything I ever got in a union job.  But others in the same job would receive little or no raise. 

    Unions are good for people who aren’t in a position to have their voice heard or are happy just keeping their head down and never getting noticed for good or bad.  Unions are great for workers that want to game the system.  Unions are bad for those of us who have aspirations of moving up in the company and want to make our own way in the world on our own merit.  Personally, I have volunteered for everything that gets me close to management.  In college I managed to have dinner with the state attorney general at a professor’s house because I made sure he knew me as someone who wanted to succeed. 

    For me any law that makes unionization easier in any organization is a negative, as I have always found greater success without a union.  Without a union I did not have money taken from my pay check to support things I didn’t always agree with, and my free choices meant that I could succeed without the approval of my co-workers.

    I will never work in a unionized institution as long as I have that free choice. 

  6. 0
    Chaltab says:

    I know. I’m saying that those that *are* right-wing are less likely to take Gamepolitics seriously if Dennis injects left-wing opinions into his stories. Which is what his opinion on this article struck me as. Censorship groups are most always political extremists to start with, and any hint of bias is grounds for total dismissal of another POV.

  7. 0
    Dragoon1376 says:

    Also, I think the Unions spent about $72 million during the last election in Colorado to rail against any politicians that weren’t in favor of supporting their new "secret" ballot approaches.  Seems like their pretty rich and powerful in our society to me.

  8. 0
    TJLK says:

    I hate the absolutist view that "If you’re anti-union then you’re anti-family."  It is a view that is about as enlightening as "If you’re anti-video game regulation then you’re anti-family."  It really is the same style of argument.  And that is essentially what kind of statement this story is making.  Because if you’re a Republican then you’re exploiting games, not supporting them.  I’m not even a Republican and I’m defending them because they are being unjustly attacked.

    What is the significance of accusing them of exploiting the Nintendo Wii?  That approach certainly lacks any form of integrity.  Do you agree?  Its fine if you are pro-union but I have a good feeling if the shoe was on the other foot you’d be patting them on the back.

    Why not give them some props for promoting video games?  Instead of saying they are exploiting the Nintendo Wii claim they are promoting the Nintendo Wii.  Whichever anti-union advocate wins that Wii will likely purchase more Wii games for said system.  They are more likely to play with it and are more likely to ::gasp:: be a gamer.

  9. 0
    TJLK says:

    I wouldn’t call this "exploiting the Nintendo Wii for political gain."

    It is giving away a wii to people that wish to get involved and share a similar vision he does.

    If this was a pro-union movement that was giving a wii away, would you call it "exploting the Nintendo Wii for political gain" or would you call it providing underpaid workers with a chance to win a gaming system?

    Stories like this kill GP’s ability to claim their presenting a balanced and unbiased view.

  10. 0
    Chaltab says:

    In a lot of people’s minds, being anti-union is akin to being a facist. They want to reduce it to simple black and white -Unions are good, corporations are bad- terms, when the reality is, everyone looks out for themselves and unions are just as capable of screwing people over as companies are.

  11. 0
    catboy_j says:

    Or maybe he just wants a wii but doesn’t care or has already decided hes in favor of the guy offering its position. What’s with all the semi personal attacks in this article?

  12. 0
    catboy_j says:

    Only people who shade the truth will pull out a part of a quote and leave it incomplete standing as if that’s the entire truth. He also adds to that. Don’t be Dishonest.

  13. 0
    Snipzor says:

    I suppose in that context you would want to register for anything as long as you win something. I think you might have inspired the KKK to revamp their marketing.

    You fail at free will.

  14. 0
    Paladin says:

    Wow, just when I thought this site had become completely useless, Dennis points out this little tidbit. I probably wouldn’t have known about it if he hadn’t posted this story, now I’m signed up and registered for that Wii. Great job Dennis! Oh wait, you wanted us to stay away from it? Oh then I guess you fail.



  15. 0
    T5 says:

    "Certainly, that level of violence doesn’t happen today."

    Thank you for refuting your own argument.  That said the above points still stand.  To be sure the above points are neither anti-union nor pro, simply is it a reality.  Will the concern you show for history is admirable it ultimately has no bearing on this discussion in the context in which you forwarded it.


  16. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Tell that to the folks in Matewan, Ludlow and other similar places who were gunned down by evil rich folks for unionizing.  Individual choice is not found at the wrong end of a machine gun.

    Lattimer Massacre: 19 miners were killed by police in Lattimer, Pennsylvania, during a march in support of unions.

    Battle of Virden: October 1898. Part of the larger mine wars that established Illinois as the leading union state in the country, and the reason that Mother Jones is buried at Mt. Olive, Illinois

    Ludlow Massacre: 20 people, including women and children, killed when armed police, hired guns, and Colorado National Guardsmen broke up a tent colony formed by families of miners who had been evicted from company-owned housing.

    Matewan, West Virginia, 1920: 12 men were killed in a gunfight between town residents and the Baldwin Felts Detective Agency, hired by mine owners.

    Certainly, that level of violence doesn’t happen today.  It doesn’t have to.  Workers know how far employers are willing to go, and anyone who has worked for any length of time knows that bosses don’t want workers organizing, and they’re willing to put a lot of pressure on workers to ensure they don’t unionize.

  17. 0
    T5 says:

    You’d be surpirsed to learn that a lot of free market types are actually pro-union in a very traditional sense of the meaning, I invite you to look at what the likes of Milton Friedman have said on the subject.  The ideas of collective bargining are fine if that is how a worker pursues his right to contract with his employer, the objections start rolling in when unions become corrupt power hungry vessels that fail to protect thei people they cliam to represent.  After all there are reasons union membership are low and a lot of that has to do with individual choice, not the EVIL RICH PEOPLE.   

  18. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    In the United States, a union can become the "sole bargaining agent" for all of a company’s employees by having a majority of those employees vote to that effect. Though I rarely agree with "free market" types, there’s no denying that a government-granted monopoly over employee representation is in no way compatible with the "laissez faire" principles that free marketers espouse.

  19. 0
    Neeneko says:

    I have never understood how people can call themselves ‘free market’ AND ‘anti-union’.

    If a group of people (union, corperation, etc) have a service that someone else wants, you negotate for use of that serivce and agree to terms.  Free market requires that both sides of the contract/exchange have leverage.

    Yet the free market anti-union people seem to feel that only one side should have any say in the contract.  Funny how they don’t say the same thing about, say, suppliers.  the UAW was an interesting example of this.  Sure the unions negotated a good contract and that hurt the bottom line, but what about all the companies that the auto industry bought things like raw materials from?  They were equally guilty but got none off the blame.

  20. 0
    illspirit says:


    Rich guys like the union bosses and their lobbyists who will become even richer and more powerful by coercing more workers into joining and paying dues under the Orwellian-named "free choice" law?

  21. 0
    Danath says:

    Unions arent always good, especially if the company is offering decent pay and benefits already. Remember, its not the company that pays most of these union dues, its the workers, who are already heavily taxed.

    There was a factory here in Canada that offered its workers a pay raise (yes, in the recession) and additional benefits and a union *REJECTED* it because it wasnt enough. So guess what, they simply closed their doors and said "fine, were closing". In this situation a union screwed up big time, its happened before too, so don’t assume unions are awsome and fix everything.

    I also notice a few people seem very polarized "what the COMPANY should have all the power?!" and "what the UNION should have all the power?!"

    And in most cases yes, the company should have the power, not the union, despite people seeing companies as evil, they dont actually burn puppies at the stake while opening sweatshops and torturing children in cubicled basements, they have standards, and while in a few cases unions have been helpful, by and large they are not.

  22. 0
    Wonderful Lizard of Oz says:

    I really like Newt Gingrich.  I really like Wiis.


    Thus, all of this is good in my book.


    I would probably go insane if Hillary Clinton offered a free Wii or if Newt Gingrich offered a free Play Station 3.

  23. 0
    Erik says:

    BUT, I will admit that anymore Unions are pretty ineffective in comparison to what they used to be.  When they HAD connections to the mafia companies were a little more hesitant to screw over thier workers.  Being afraid that you will dissappear never to be heard from again will do that to you.  I did work for a union that almost seemed like a lapdog for the company.

    So maybe we don’t need Unions, we need old school Unions.


  24. 0
    Erik says:

    "Not every single job is a sweatshop (as a matter of fact, I would probably have to say almost zero are because of current labor laws as well as the points I touched on in one of my other posts)"

    But every single corporation would be a sweatshop if they thought they could get away with it.  Labor laws do help solve parts of this, but there is many situations where they are lacking in.  This is where Unions have to step in and fill in the gaps.

    "You’re assuming that people enter these jobs and are stuck there forever which ignores the fact that they may be there temporarily in these unskilled labor positions while they go to trade school or college."

    Only to become a skilled serf and work in a skilled sweatshop.  Stellar.

    "While you’re steadfast in your choice to stick to your guns, I’m left wondering what are you basing your sweeping condemnation of the corporate "sweatshops" and the "powerlessness" of the working classes.  Is your argument solely based on the philosophies of Marx?

    Its more based on disgust of capitalist philosophies of Limbaugh than any like of the philosophies of Marx.


  25. 0
    Dragoon1376 says:

    No, but I’ve worked my share of retail/food service industry jobs while going to college.  Everything has been a means to an end while I wrap up my MA and begin to look for an actual career.  Not every single job is a sweatshop (as a matter of fact, I would probably have to say almost zero are because of current labor laws as well as the points I touched on in one of my other posts) and your generalizations don’t do your arguments any favors.  You’re assuming that people enter these jobs and are stuck there forever which ignores the fact that they may be there temporarily in these unskilled labor positions while they go to trade school or college. 



  26. 0
    Erik says:

    "How are you powerless?  Are you only given one job during your life and you’re at the whim of the corporate goons that won you in whatever infernal raffle that placed you in that job forever?"

    Of course not.  You are always capable of finding a new sweatshop to go to and have no power.  But really what kind of a trade off is that anyways?  But still it comes down to the fact that you seem to be afraid of the employees having any power.  Are you a CEO?  If not then there is no way I can fathom your point of view in this situation.



  27. 0
    Dragoon1376 says:

    And this is why we can’t have nice, intelligent, grown-up discussions/debates about the merits of unions in our economy since everything devolves into childish name calling, straw-man arguments, reductio ad hitlerum, or ad homonium attacks. 

  28. 0
    Dragoon1376 says:


    Get a grip.  While companies are out to make a profit (we all are to a certain extent), you are not beholden to them forever.  If Company A pisses off its workforce, where do you think the competent workers go? To Company B if they have a more attractive pension/wage/benefits/what have you.  If not them, then Company C.  It behooves a company to keep their workforce happy (the belief being that happy workforce = productive workforce) lest they LOSE their qualified workers to someone else.  There are enough slackers/idiots/morons on the payroll as is that make the competent/hardworking individuals valuable.  

    Also, double check your statements about the minimum wage.  Many, if not nearly all, companies start people above the minimum wage for the very reasons I stated above.  And you also have to realize that many jobs in the lower income brackets are ones that ANYONE can do.  They are UNSKILLED LABOR that can be replaced with two weeks of training courses.  Ideally, people would be using these jobs as stepping stones and moving on to bigger and better things via education or through the management steps in that company.

    Btw, Whole Foods is not unionized except in those states that mandate its workers be allowed to do so (California).  The location I worked at in Colorado, I was making a good $5 – 10 less than my unionized counterpart in any King Soopers (Kroger).  As Austin has pointed out, part of your added expenses as a union member is to pay your union dues which will actually impact the "extra" amount you’re making (even when I was at UPS, I had the choice of not joining the Teamsters but still had to pay a "fee" to them that was $1 less than the union dues. Still seems like extortion/coercision to me).  And hell, if you need to work and your union goes on strike than you have no choice really but to join them.  What Whole Foods was able to do because it didn’t have these union overheads was to implement a profit sharing program with their employees.  Hell, after one Christmas/New Years, I made an extra $1100 for busting my ass for the "evil" corporation without the interference of the union.

  29. 0
    Erik says:

    You used Wal-mart of all places as a place where the workers do well without a union?  Can I assume you are being facetious?  And I’m not talking 10 cents a shoe.  I’m talking ten year olds working 18 hour shifts for 10 cents in a day.  Come to the realization that we are merely cattle for these companies.  And if given the freedom to do so, they will take every advantage that they can.  Yes unions have flaws, sometimes seriously so.  But I’d rather take a chance with someone with a 90% chance of fucking me over rather than someone with a 100% chance of fucking me over.

    I mean if these companies value thier employees so I suppose the government shouldn’t have to set a minimum wage then eh?

    Are you really comfortable with being powerless?


  30. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Slight difference there, which you may have overlooked; in CHINA, 10 cents a shoe is a godsend.  In America, people who flip Cheeseburgers want 6 dollars or more an hour.

    I don’t know Erik, what would happen?  Let’s look at Wal-Mart: oh wait, that store’s doing well, and it’s workers do well.  No union either.  Huh.  Must be a fluke.  Let’s look at Hyundai; oh wait, the workers there have better health care than at the Big 3.  Let’s look at UPS: for a while, there were quite a few running an interesting scam; during summer, they’d hire college kids with the promise of $3000 dollars a semester after their 30 day ‘probation’ period at UPS (also, incidentally, the day they join the union).  All the sudden, on day 24, they would be teaching someone else, and on day 29, they’d be fired and replaced by the person they had taught.  Rinse and repeat.  But the unions never stepped in, and never returned the paid dues.  Strange.  Unions fucking people over?  I’ve never heard of such a thing.

    Or you could talk about ALPA, my dad’s union, which, shortly after he left flying Dash-8s for Piedmont, fucked him over, even after his five years of paying dues.  The day before he had retired, they changed the requirements for getting flight benefits, but never made it public until the day AFTER he retired.  Of course, anyone with half a brain should be able to see that he should’ve had those flight rights, but the union stood by and said they wouldn’t take up his case.  How peculiar.

    I don’t know what you do for work, but having worked union jobs in my younger days and in college, I can tell you they’re filled with backstabbers and people who think themselves mob bosses (and in some cases, actually are.  Seriously).

    Oh, of course, because I’ve NEVER done manual labor in my life I think people who do are ‘serfs’.  What a very ignorant comment.  Do I believe that people should make 700 dollars a day doing unskilled labor?  Hell no.  Do I think part-time workers should get full healthcare?  Absolutely not.  Do I think unions help them?  Haven’t seen in or even heard of it happening since the mid 1900’s, except for that one incident in a battery plant in the 70s. 

  31. 0
    Erik says:

    Yes, I believe that they would be able to find someone to do the job regardless of how it pays.  Companies will do whatever they can get away with.  Chinese sweat shops show this.  If you hand over all the power to these corporations do you really thing that good things will happen?

    Why do I think that people would work for these companies regardless of conditions and pay?  Because there are people like you out there who think that we serfs shouldn’t be uppity and should only do what we are told.


  32. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Do you think that, if Hyundai were to cut out its insurance, all those people would actually stay there?  There’s a limit to what people will take, even when they’re not unionized.  The only thing a union does is take money and give back nothing.

    UNIONS are NOT yoru friends.  THEY will also screw you at the first opportunity.  All they want you for is your dues.

  33. 0
    catboy_j says:

    I can’t believe what I’m reading. This seems to have come down to "Well if the employer decides he wants to start flogging employees and the employee can’t put up with it to bad"

  34. 0
    Erik says:

    And if Hyandai decides to get rid of that insurance they could do so at a moments notice.  As in a unionized shop they would be in breach of contract.  Do you REALLy think that we should hand over all power to the corporations?  Do you honestly think that they are your friends and have your best interests at heart?  Be realistic.  If Nike could get away with bringing its sweatshops from Asia over to America, and save on shipping costs, they would have eleven year olds in Indiana working 18 hour shifts for a dime a week.

    These people are NOT your friends.  They will screw you at the first opportunity.  And Newt Gingrich expecting us to turn over the deed to our very lives and livelihood to these asshole corporate fucks is a very very dumb idea.


  35. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    How is 25 dollars an hour for unskilled or barely skilled work not a ‘fair rate’? 

    And exploiting workers isn’t what brings about the golden parachutes, its got more to do with the distribution of the profit.  Obviously, in most cases, the people on the bottom won’t see the profit, unless you work at Meryl Lynch (I suspect I spelled that wrong).

  36. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Absolutely not.  The average worker at the Hyundai plant in Indiana makes about 25 dollars an hour, and takes most of it home (except what’s deducted for taxes).  The average union worker makes about 35 dollars an hour, pays 15 to 45 a week in union dues, and produces an inferior product at a higher cost to the consumer.  The funniest part?  The people at the Hyundai plant have better insurance.  Unionization didn’t help them do anything, it actually slows dow their work.  For example, in Detroit, car parts must be off-loaded from the truck that brought them across the street from the plant, then loaded onto a union truck and brought to the plant.  That causes delays of hours while waiting for the parts to be brought over.  Meanwhile, in Indiana, the parts are off-loaded right at the facility, with no moronic extra step to waste time and money because the union wants to.

  37. 0
    Erik says:

    Then be a slave for a different company.  Really I’m not sure you people are completely grasping this.  If you give the corporations all the power and keep the worker helpless then it doesn’t matter what company you work for.  Why should people do what Gingrich says and willing hand over any power we have over to rich assholes?


  38. 0
    LAG - Law Abiding Gamer says:

    No problems here with workers being paid a fair rate for their product.  How do you define "fair rate"?  In my experience, union workers are often paid FAR MORE than what I would consider a fair rate for their job, considering the amount of sacrifice someone has put into gaining that job (the exception there is teachers…the NEA is one of the most rediculous excuses for a union in existance). 

    Also, corporations may be tempted to exploit their workers (again, please define "exploit" because I think we’d define it differently), but when they do, the good workers leave and find employment elsewhere (present economic climate excepted).  Pretty soon, those corporations are left with the dregs of the labor pool, have to price their product out of the market due to the low efficiency of thier production, and go out of business.

    I know that I’m simplifying this a bit, but I don’t think that I’m carrying it to the level that some here have.  The bottom line is that I think unions have gone from being worker advocate organizations to worker coddling organizations, producing a breed of worker that expects the world in exchange for warming a chair.

    ***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***

  39. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    (Then don’t work there. Make your own business or get a new job, and shut up.)


  40. 0
    Erik says:

    No you didn’t say slaves.  But you seem to want the workers to be helpless and the corporations to hold all of the cards.  Sounds like slavery to me.


  41. 0
    Erik says:

    So what you are saying is that if the Hyundai workers were unionized they wouldn’t be getting screwed?


  42. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    Unfortunately, employees can’t just quit.  People need money to live, and that’s what gives employers the edge.  If workers had some sort of realistic option to withhold their labour (which is what unions are all about) you might have a point.  Now if you’re arguing for strong unions to give workers that freedom to quit, I’d be with you 100%.  If not, then you’re part of the problem.

  43. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    When you exploit labour for profit, the end result is a cheaper product, but that doesn’t mean exploiting workers for profit is right.  Every worker should be paid a fair rate for what he produces.  The fact that most companies exploit workers explains the ridiculous CEO salaries and golden parachutes.

  44. 0
    KaylaKaze says:

    BS reich-wing talking point. The cost of labor for a vehicle makes up less than 10% of the cost to the consumer. What’s killed the US car industry is a) morons running it and b) non-universal health care. Go read a book. And one by someone with a brain, not Coulter or Rush.

  45. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Workers at Hyundai make 10 dollars less per hour than workers in unionized automobile plants.  Do you know what’s even funnier?  Hyundai’s cars are higher quality, cheaper, and they never seem to shut down the plant for a few days because the union wants something moronic.

    When you pay a union, you pay for people to actually spend most of their time trying to justify their existence.  Most of the time, it’s not a positive thing.  Once again, I say we look at ALPA for a great example, or any of the hundreds of corrupt teamsters unions filled with mafia-type leadership.

  46. 0
    deuxhero says:

    Why not? The jobs belong to them (I don’t know any worker who pays his own paycheck) after all, as their property they can control who fills them. If the employees don’t like it, they can quit.

  47. 0
    deuxhero says:

    Know why? Taxes and *surpise* unrealistic union demands.


    Want to know why american cars cost so much? your paying for Viagra, union members to sit around doing no work (not slacking, but as an actual job!) and all sorts of nonsense. This has pretty much killed the US car industry.

  48. 0
    jds says:

    I said nothing about slaves.

    Unions are obstructions. I was in one when I was younger and loved it because when my lazy ass didn’t go to work and got fired, I simply appealed for reinstatement through my union steward and my lazy ass got my job back. Look at the auto industry for a more relevant example. Hell, my neighbor retired from Ford, he gets free healthcare for the rest of his life. Good for him, but bad for Ford, and God forbid Ford get in trouble and need to renegotiate high pay for their employees so those very employees can keep their jobs.

    People get screwed all day every day whether they are in unions or not. Life ain’t fair and liberals, no matter how hard they try, can’t force people to be equal. I guarantee you one thing… that union worker would rather have a paycheck than not to have a paycheck. If he feels screwed by a non-union employer he has every right to learn a new skill and find a new job. It is certianly better than no job at all.

    . . Wisdom begins in wonder. – Socrates . .

  49. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    They got big through the market. That doesn’t mean they care about their consumers; they will do only as much as necessary to make sure that the consumer continues to buy. Supplying "wants or needs" does not equal "we care about you."

    Also, nowadays, by globalizing. Sending jobs to other countries.

  50. 0
    Erik says:

    Yes that is true.  Sometimes unions don’t look out for the little guy.  But corporations NEVER look out for the little guy.  So between the two of them, I’ll take my chances with the union.


  51. 0
    d20sapphire says:

    The thing is that unions were originally created in hopes of giving the workers equal leverage when it came to negotiating pay, hours and safety issues with their employers.  Now that some unions are super huge, they almost act the same as corporations in the sense that they act independently rather than with the will of the workers from time to time. Unions are huge and make a lot of money, especially in industries where you need to join the union to be gainfully employed in the first place.  They’re not always looking out for the little guy anymore.

  52. 0
    Valdearg says:

    ITT: Conservatives who are Bitching about something they can’t change.


    To take from your arguments in this thread:

    If you can’t take it, find a video game politics site that doesn’t have bias, or even better yet, a conservative bias! Oh, wait.. Thats right, you can’t. That being said, "quit yer Bitchin" about what Dennis chooses to do with his site.

    In all honesty, I hope he gets a kick out of making you guys squirm while reading his commentary.

  53. 0
    catboy_j says:

    I think part of the problem is that some unions get known to be almost infamous crime boss types. They are being intimidated. Read up. Plus do you think we should remove the secret ballot for presidency? The secrecy is what helps people make choices free of social constraints.

  54. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    …I still don’t follow where exactly you are coming from.

    Basically, regarding the secret ballots, the EFCA ensures an alternative to voting which employers must recognize.

  55. 0
    deuxhero says:

    uh what? Unless they are being intimdated, they are going to vote the same way, and if they are being intimdated , why should a union created via intimdation be reconized?

  56. 0
    LAG - Law Abiding Gamer says:

    Unions were great at keeping large corporations from abusing their employees who had very little choice in where they could go to work.  The American and world economies are quite different now.  First of all, they’re much larger in scope.  Secondly, the average worker is much better informed than they were a century ago.  There are alternatives for them, and they know it. 

    What happens now is that corporations and governments get hog-tied by unions.  When a San Francisco Muni bus driver makes close to 6 figures and gets two weeks worth of "no show" days (days where they don’t have to call, don’t have to schedule, they just don’t show up for work…yeah, it’s real) thanks to "collective bargaining", there’s something wrong with the system.  When a telephone company hack IS making 6 figures to work 4 hours a day to do a job that 90 days worth of training can create a replacement for, there’s something wrong with the system.

    Don’t get me wrong.  I’m not pro-corporation. However, IMHO many unions have taken "fighting for the workers" and modified it to "fighting for the workers’ greed", and I think that’s wrong.  Today’s world may still need some form of advocacy for workers to combat true abuse, but I don’t think that a janitor making $25 an hour simply because their union has threatened to beat up on management as combatting abuse.  If that janitor wants to make more money, then he or she can bust their ass, just as many others have (myself included…call me an "elitist" if you want) and get some education, then get out there to find a job that fits your economic desires.

    Now, how many small businesses can afford to pay someone a hundred grand a year for 4 hours of work a day, simply because some group of people say that they have to?  Not because the job is worth that much, and not because that person is really that good, but just because someone says, "YOU MUST PAY THAT MUCH OR ELSE!"  I think that’s ludicrous, and that’s why it’s a bad thing.


  57. 0
    shady8x says:

    When I start a flower shop, I don’t want to pay 100k per year to the cashier… and if I have to then my business will close really fast…

    What this bill does is destroy the chances of most new businesses, not that those chances are great to begin with…

    What this does is tell business owners that you don’t have to be a large company to outsource… you just have start all companys in other nations or you will go broke fast…

  58. 0
    shady8x says:

    So if I buy a company and own it, then I should only have 1/3 of the power even though I own it? While the janitor tells me that I can’t expand my product line into Canada cause he hates canadians?

    Cool, I hope you rent housing cause I want to move in and sell a third of it…

  59. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    "That "free choice" law isn’t the flowers & candy bill that you want to think it is.  It would make even the smallest business prone to having it’s labor unionized."

    And this would be a bad thing why?

    Look, a union is just a group of workers getting together to bargain on an equal footing with management.  What’s so wrong about that?  It’s the free market in operation.  Heck, folks like Gingrich should be all for free markets.

  60. 0
    BrandonL337 says:

    Nothing would happen to the secret ballot that is nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit spread by republicans to get union supporters to vote against the bill, all it does is give the employees another option as to how to form a union.  also the secret ballot is to prevent companies from harrasing worker that support the union


  61. 0
    Aprincen says:

    Power in a corporation has to be shared between employees (represented by the unions), shareholders and the people who run the company. If one of these gets to much money the will screw over the other two (and the company in the process). Unions are necessary.

  62. 0
    Erik says:

    A good union isn’t benevolent.  When it comes to standing up against companies raping their employees, per what goes on in every non-unionized job I’ve had, you want someone good and malevolent that will seriously take the company to task.


  63. 0
    Zerodash says:

    That "free choice" law isn’t the flowers & candy bill that you want to think it is.  It would make even the smallest business prone to having it’s labor unionized.  Also, the secret ballot will be gone, so dissenters will be unprotected- prime fodder to be strong-armed by union leaders.

    Look at what happened to the auto industry- the unions drove them to ruin.  Hell, I used to live with a guy who worked for Ford, and he made 80K a year to put floormats in cars!  He had awesome health insurance and had a pension coming his way-  just to put down goddamn floormats.

    I don’t understand why people want to pretend Unions are somehow these benevolent organizations. 

    Guess what?  If you make it even harder for small/medium businesses to stay solvent (by passing this bill) you will make it harder for them to keep people employed or even make new hires.  Money doesn’t grow on trees.

    Newt is a jackass, but with all due respect, why not try to actually RUN a company before deciding this union idea is a good one?

  64. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    Er…try working at Home Depot. The one near my house doesn’t have a union, and their employees are treated quite handsomely. Yes, there are people that abuse non-union people, but to REQUIRE someone to work in a union is even more retarded. I think that unions are indeed necessary, but you shouldn’t be forced into it. I want to be a teacher, but I don’t want to have to pay union fees and have to deal with having my options so limited.

    Some places work fine without unions, and some don’t. Some work great with unions, and others don’t. Unions can abuse power just like anyone else.


  65. 0
    Austin_Lewis says:

    Really?  When i worked for UPS years and years ago, I remember our union rep told me that if I didn’t slow down and stop making the other jackasses look bad, he’d break my leg.  Of course, then I ‘accidentally’ dropped a 170 pound tube of maps on him, but still.

    Unions in America do barely anything; look at ALPA (the pilot’s union, basically), your average teamster union, and even my favorite to make fun of, Kroger’s union, which has fucked over people who work there for years and years now.  Unions are best at taking your money and not fighting for your rights.

  66. 0
    Hackangel says:

    I’m wondering how different unions work in the United States compared to how they work in Quebec, Canada. I’m living in the most unionized province in Canada, where (if I’m not mistaken) 60% to 70% of jobs are unionized. To my recollection, only 2 businesses ever closed doors directly because of a union: a MacDonald restaurant and a Wal-Mart store. Both bussienesses closed within the week both workplaces became unionized.

  67. 0
    catboy_j says:

    Lol years ago when my mom was working under a union they were stupid and kept pretty much giving eye candy deals that caved into the county and the employers every time.

  68. 0
    Adrian Lopez says:

    A true "free choice" act would enable employees to choose their own representative in contractual negotiations rather than allow a particular union to represent all of a company’s employees simply because a majority of those employees happen to want that particular union to represent them. No union should have a monopoly over a corporation’s employees.

  69. 0
    catboy_j says:

    I can understand support for unions and I can understand going against them… I think the ballot should remain secret though…

    Not sure how I feel about bribing people with anything though, or if this would even work.

  70. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Because, essentially, the corporations are FORCING them to vote.

    From what -I- understand, according to the EFCA, if over 50% of employees in a unit sign authorization cards, they can forgo a secret-ballot vote, as there has already been majority approval. But under current law, the employers (the corporations) can say, "No. You must vote." because they can reject the authorization cards.

    Hence, the corporations have power to force a vote onto the employees by rejecting an alternative that gives the same result (majority favor).

  71. 0
    deuxhero says:

    How is insureing a worker has a right to a secret ballet giveing "rich guys and corporations… …all the power in our society"


    Please quite with the commentary, it makes you harder to bare.


  72. 0
    Erik says:

    So you are saying that the corporations SHOULD have all the power?  And if if slaves get too uppity they should all be replaced with more compliant slaves?  Do you really think that? 


  73. 0
    jds says:


    (jds: Because, you know, a union should have the power to shut down a corporation and risk the employment of everyone. Yeah, what a great idea. Next time a union strikes fire ’em all and hire people that want the jobs.)

    . . Wisdom begins in wonder. – Socrates . .

  74. 0
    PHX Corp says:

    Yea, I’ll sign up, but I already have a Wii, so I’ll give the extra to One of my RL friends(who Dosen’t have one) {Sarcasm}

    @GP how many Pundits/politicians supporting any game system so far(Tally Count) This console war(Including Sean Hannity)


  75. 0
    Nekowolf says:

    Hm. What next?

    "Attend our Corporations Against Workers Campaign and you can register to win a Get Out of Jail Free Card! Good for one DUI, ebmezzelment, rape, murder, assault, robbery, or anything else you can think of!"

    "Come on by, and Michael promises not put a bullet in yo ass!"

Leave a Reply