If Corporations Are People... Can I Become A Corporation?

80 posts / 0 new

Perhaps I'd become an LLC: a "Limited Liability Citizen"... my business is my life, and for tax purposes I can deduct living expenses from my income. If I'm sued, I can declare bankruptcy and form a new LLC.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Comments

That seem the only way to get any respect, become a "corporation"! Just being a citizen is slavery to the corporations. Being a unborn baby would get more respect. Being a gun would get more respect. Being a flag would get more respect. Being a holy book would get more respect. I thought God/Nature gave out respect,what did people do to lose so much respect??

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You understand that the whole "corporations are people" is just political hyperbole? All you Thombots seem take it literally....

What the courts have said is that people do not lose rights when they join up as organizations.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Quote WorkerBee:

You understand that the whole "corporations are people" is just political hyperbole? All you Thombots seem take it literally....

What the courts have said is that people do not lose rights when they join up as organizations.

As could be expected, you miss the point. As a citizen... a mere human, I want all those special benefits that a business has. Give me those tax write-offs baby! OK, why do I suspect I'll never show a profit! LOL

It's just blatant discrimination to be denied the benefits of being an LLC just because I'm a human being! And why can't I decide for myself what the purpose of my "business" is? As long as it's a legal activity… right? So why not a business plan for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit Of Happiness!!!

BTW... please thank all your gullible right wing friends who work so hard to eliminate the corporate income tax. I'll be sure to take advantage of that ASAP!

Of course you miss the point. Corporations are our little sociopathic Frankensteins. They REQUIRE special restrictions because they have limited liability, are given special privileges to accumulate wealth… and unlike the early days of the Republic, they can live forever. To have such profit-seeking legal entities use their wealth in elections is to destroy the very concept of democracy where the voices of all citizens should weigh the same .

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

You understand that the whole "corporations are people" is just political hyperbole? All you Thombots seem take it literally....

What the courts have said is that people do not lose rights when they join up as organizations.

Thombots - nice.

mjolnir's picture
mjolnir
Joined:
Mar. 3, 2011 12:42 pm

Quote WorkerBee:

You understand that the whole "corporations are people" is just political hyperbole? All you Thombots seem take it literally....

What the courts have said is that people do not lose rights when they join up as organizations.

No one I know takes the concept literally... except perhaps Romney... "Corporations are people, my friend!". But the legal basis for corporate personhood is the equal protection section of 14th Amendment which reads

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 14th was to apply federal rights to freed slaves after the Civil War. And we know the 14th applies to individuals because the key concept here is equal protection applies to people actually born or naturalized... THEY are given equal protection. There is NOTHING in the 14th that says equal protection applies to organizations created by the states like corporations.

The 14th was hijacked.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

You understand that the whole "corporations are people" is just political hyperbole? All you Thombots seem take it literally....

What the courts have said is that people do not lose rights when they join up as organizations.

Slavery was the drastic misconception that people can be treated as property.

Citizens United is a drastic misconception that property can be treated as people.

We've come a long way baby.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote WorkerBee:

You understand that the whole "corporations are people" is just political hyperbole? All you Thombots seem take it literally....

What the courts have said is that people do not lose rights when they join up as organizations.

The 14th Amendment requires that no "person" be denied due process nor equal protection of the laws.

After ratification of the 14th Amendment the courts ruled that a corporation was not a "person."

At some point (read Thom's Unequal Protection) courts began ruling that a corporation was a "person"

Hence "corporations are people."

Technically the left (or, rather, all thinking citizens) should protest that "Corporations are not persons." So as to avoid the subterfuge of this post.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Here's a brief, but dated, overview of how the 14th was hijacked

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/fourteenth_amendment_hammerstrom.pdf

In this story is the larger one how today's right wingers have replaced the alleged respect for the Constitution with a corporate-centric view of law and politics. But we already knew their respect of the Constitution and Original Intent was bullshit when they bought into the lie the 2ed Amendment had nothing to do with a well regulated militia.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

You 1%'ers still think the earth is flat. You think you`re "losing rights" to have equal rights with the majority? Yes, keep believing your rights of ownership is the same as the rights of workers,you will soon fall off your "flat earth"!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

To me the fundamental question is "do organizations of citizens have rights?"

If the answer to this question is No then does that not mean that the federal government can shut down groups like the Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute, MoveOn and, ironically, even the good folks at MoveToAmend....

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote Pierpont:

As could be expected, you miss the point. As a citizen... a mere human, I want all those special benefits that a business has. Give me those tax write-offs baby! OK, why do I suspect I'll never show a profit! LOL

Go ahead.. nobody is stoping you, My wife runs a Home business and the write off's are very nice. But it might screw you.... Corporation don't get earn income tax credits. Corporation have to spend money to get the credits.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm

Corporations are not chartered at the federal level.

The attempt to confound human rights with legal rights is designed to create institutions with powers greater than those of the citizen but with all of the inherent rights of citizenship. Corporate personhood is something of a misnomer or oxymoron as the corporation itself is created by contract and is thus not a free being. The sad reality is that for all their talk of freedom, these days anyone who works for a corporation risks losing a degree of humanity. In the end, their objective is obfuscate the fact that even citizens are subject to law. So it would make no difference if their argument was correct, as it is activity which is regulated by law and not type of person. Their argument is not correct, however, because the formation of a corporation is a legal action and thus subject to all of the conditions relevant to the definition of the legal category under which the corporation is formed. The constitutional rights of a citizen by contrast are inalienable.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Darn nimbleone, you have introduced cogency and sanity to what was an interesting psychological presentation of the alternatives.

What I wanted to say about the "can I become a corporation" question, if we can table Cap's point that some people can use it if they have the right business for it, is that you have a heart and a conscience. If you want them removed and replaced by Cheneygear, you might be able to qualify.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

I had an acquaintance who told me this story.

He said, "I was once a corporation and I have to admit it did feel amazingly powerful. I was able to throw out more useless information in meetings, in fact I took up more space and breathed in more oxygen. To tell the truth I began to believe I was entitled to more than my employees and that my customers really didn't matter. Then one day I looked in the mirror just to admire myself and discovered I'd become a conceited, arrogant, pompous, overbearing ass completely full of my own self importance."

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 12:16 pm

I'd settle for being taxed on net income like corporations. I'm surprised more people aren't calling for this.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote WorkerBee:

To me the fundamental question is "do organizations of citizens have rights?"

If the answer to this question is No then does that not mean that the federal government can shut down groups like the Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute, MoveOn and, ironically, even the good folks at MoveToAmend....

Can somone address this?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

To me the fundamental question is "do organizations of citizens have rights?"

So you're conceding the point the 14th Amendment has been hijacked?

There's no doubt we have a constitutional to organize into groups just as we do to free speech. The question is are there times when the damage done by free speech is so great it can be limited? And indeed the USSC has ruled that IT CAN! http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf So the question really is is allowing unlimited individual and corporate dollars into the political process one of those times? If we see democracy and self-government a realm that should be apart from the market where dollars rule... then the answer is yes. But it comes as no surprise that a right wing court has ruled in favor of those with money.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

As could be expected, you miss the point. As a citizen... a mere human, I want all those special benefits that a business has. Give me those tax write-offs baby! OK, why do I suspect I'll never show a profit! LOL

Go ahead.. nobody is stoping you, My wife runs a Home business and the write off's are very nice.
Thanks for again proving you're incapable of getting the point!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

Quote nimblecivet:The sad reality is that for all their talk of freedom, these days anyone who works for a corporation risks losing a degree of humanity.
It is one of those contradictions I find amusing. Corporations are private tyrannies that to the Right represent the epitome of freedom.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Pierpont:

Thanks for again proving you're incapable of getting the point!

To be fair, I don't think you have a clue what it take to run a corporation or any of the issues regarding it taxes and/or benefits. So again you cling to your hyperbole like a childs blanky.

I do run an LLC and my wife does run a Home business.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote Pierpont:
Quote WorkerBee:

To me the fundamental question is "do organizations of citizens have rights?"

So you're conceding the point the 14th Amendment has been hijacked?

Sure, I do not see the 14th admendment as relevant to the core question.

Quote Pierpont:

There's no doubt we have a constitutional to organize into groups just as we do to free speech. The question is are there times when the damage done by free speech is so great it can be limited? And indeed the USSC has ruled that IT CAN! http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf So the question really is is allowing unlimited individual and corporate dollars into the political process one of those times? If we see democracy and self-government a realm that should be apart from the market where dollars rule... then the answer is yes. But it comes as no surprise that a right wing court has ruled in favor of those with money.

It seems to me the core of the first amendment is about political speech, you are saying that you do not like the political speech that certain associations of people engage in so you want to use the power of government so shut them up.

If the first amendment does not protect against this then what does it protect?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

To me the fundamental question is "do organizations of citizens have rights?"

If the answer to this question is No then does that not mean that the federal government can shut down groups like the Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute, MoveOn and, ironically, even the good folks at MoveToAmend....

Yes they have rights. They are however not the exact same rights as an individual person. An organization can't vote but it's individual members can. Whether you have rights or not has no bearing on whether you can be "shut down".

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

Thanks for again proving you're incapable of getting the point!

To be fair, I don't think you have a clue what it take to run a corporation or any of the issues regarding it taxes and/or benefits. So again you cling to your hyperbole like a childs blanky.

I do run an LLC and my wife does run a Home business.

I too run an LLC and my wife has a job and runs a home business. The fundamental question is why do we as Companies have the right to write off our mileage, certain meals, clothing costs, gasoline costs, supplies, etc. but the regular worker does not? I know why. Because business people are the one's who write legislation and the tax codes. It is recognized that there is a cost to doing business in order to make a profit but it is NOT recognized that there is a cost to working for a living in order to make a profit. Individuals are told that if you can't afford to buy something then don't. Businesses are told that if you can't afford to buy something then do, and write it off as a loss and we'll reduce your tax liability.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:Yes they have rights. They are however not the exact same rights as an individual person. An organization can't vote but it's individual members can. Whether you have rights or not has no bearing on whether you can be "shut down".

Do you believe that the first amendment does not prohibit the government from preventing Moveon.org from placing political add on tv?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Isnt a union just another name for corporation?

Commonsense461
Joined:
Jul. 2, 2012 9:48 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

The fundamental question is why do we as Companies have the right to write off our mileage, certain meals, clothing costs, gasoline costs, supplies, etc. but the regular worker does not? I know why. Because business people are the one's who write legislation and the tax codes. It is recognized that there is a cost to doing business in order to make a profit but it is NOT recognized that there is a cost to working for a living in order to make a profit. Individuals are told that if you can't afford to buy something then don't. Businesses are told that if you can't afford to buy something then do, and write it off as a loss and we'll reduce your tax liability.

And you claim to run an LLC. yet you claim to not know why. interesting. You apparently know jackshit. All deduction are put into place to do one thing. Incentivize activities. For the same reason a business offers a 10% off coupon to purchase product X. It incentivizes an activity a person wouldn’t normally do under normal conditions. The benefits of buying product X at a 10% discount outweigh the 10% loss in sales price. Hence the same with government. They offer deductions that incentivizes economic activity. A salesman that travels will spend more and sell more with the deduction than without, the economy benefits far more than the loss of the deduction.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote WorkerBee:
Quote Bush_Wacker:Yes they have rights. They are however not the exact same rights as an individual person. An organization can't vote but it's individual members can. Whether you have rights or not has no bearing on whether you can be "shut down".

Do you believe that the first amendment does not prohibit the government from preventing Moveon.org from placing political add on tv?

In it's original context, yes. However the Supreme Court has put restrictions on the First Amendment over the years and based on those restrictions it depends on what kind of political add it is and what's in that add.

Exceptions to free speech in the United States are limitations on the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and expression as recognized by the United States Supreme Court. These exceptions have been created over time, based on certain types of speech and expression, and under different contexts. While freedom of speech in the United States is a constitutional right, these exceptions make that right a limited one.

Restrictions that are based on people's reactions to words include both instances of a complete exception, and cases of diminished protection. Speech that involves incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, and speech owned by others are all completely exempt from First Amendment protections. Commercial advertising receives diminished, but not eliminated, protection.

Along with communicative restrictions, less protection is afforded for uninhibited speech when the government acts as subsidizer or speaker, is an employer, controls education, or regulates the following: the mail, airwaves, legal bar, military, prisons, and immigration.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Pierpont:

Thanks for again proving you're incapable of getting the point!

To be fair, I don't think you have a clue what it take to run a corporation or any of the issues regarding it taxes and/or benefits. So again you cling to your hyperbole like a childs blanky.
Gee, who knows better than the OP what point they were making.. and whether some dimwit reading it is clueless?

As for running a business... my 20 years in admin taught me well and I've been running my own business now since 1992... and it ain't www.workfromhome.com Either way, none of that is relevant to this discussion... which you obviously STILL can't grasp!

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm
Quote Capital.0:
Quote Bush_Wacker:

The fundamental question is why do we as Companies have the right to write off our mileage, certain meals, clothing costs, gasoline costs, supplies, etc. but the regular worker does not? I know why. Because business people are the one's who write legislation and the tax codes. It is recognized that there is a cost to doing business in order to make a profit but it is NOT recognized that there is a cost to working for a living in order to make a profit. Individuals are told that if you can't afford to buy something then don't. Businesses are told that if you can't afford to buy something then do, and write it off as a loss and we'll reduce your tax liability.

And you claim to run an LLC. yet you claim to not know why. interesting. You apparently know jackshit. All deduction are put into place to do one thing. Incentivize activities. For the same reason a business offers a 10% off coupon to purchase product X. It incentivizes an activity a person wouldn’t normally do under normal conditions. The benefits of buying product X at a 10% discount outweigh the 10% loss in sales price. Hence the same with government. They offer deductions that incentivizes economic activity. A salesman that travels will spend more and sell more with the deduction than without, the economy benefits far more than the loss of the deduction.

Politicians like you are the reason this country is in the shitter. You have such a simple mind and you have no mechanism for creative or critical thinking. I know that businesses are afforded their deductions as an incentive to engage in economic stimulus and productivity. You can't seem to pull your head out far enough to realize that if individual persons were afforded the same types of deductions then they too would engage in economic stimulus and productivity from the demand side of the equation.

The problem with that is there wouldn't be enough revenue to pay the bills unless the people who make the most money in the country contributed enough to make up the difference. That will never happen as we've recently seen.

50 billion dollars worth of food stamps benefits the economy in a big way too but you don't seem to see that as a part of your little economic world. Unemployment benefits go a long way to helping the economy as well. We could go on and on but you don't have the critical thinking skills needed to understand what any of this means. Good Luck to your constituents.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Quote WorkerBee:

You understand that the whole "corporations are people" is just political hyperbole? All you Thombots seem take it literally....

What the courts have said is that people do not lose rights when they join up as organizations.

Really because when I join a union I lose the right to bargain with my employer. This has been upheld by the SCOTUS as an individual right but when I legally pass my bargaining power to a union, states can apparently pass laws that say I can't bargain my wages anymore *cough* Wisconsin *cough*

So, there is something missing from your explanation or their rationale.

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote WorkerBee:

You understand that the whole "corporations are people" is just political hyperbole? All you Thombots seem take it literally....

What the courts have said is that people do not lose rights when they join up as organizations.

Slavery was the drastic misconception that people can be treated as property.

Citizens United is a drastic misconception that property can be treated as people.

We've come a long way baby.

Great summation....

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

To me the fundamental question is "do organizations of citizens have rights?"

If the answer to this question is No then does that not mean that the federal government can shut down groups like the Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute, MoveOn and, ironically, even the good folks at MoveToAmend....

No... The question is: Should organizations of citizens retain the same rights of the individuals that comprise them? If not, which rights do they retain and which do they not?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

I find it interesting that this entire conversation has revolved around tax liablility and not the other benefits companies enjoy. For example, if I happen to kill someone and I have incorporated as an LLC, presumably I would just have to pay a fine rather than go to jail or lose any more my rights. Massey Energy and BP have both enjoyed this perk, why shouldn't I?

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

Politicians like you are the reason this country is in the shitter. You have such a simple mind and you have no mechanism for creative or critical thinking.

Didn't really bother refuting you know jackshit about corporate taxes. A LOT of Hyperbole today,

Good Luck to your constituents

Thanks...... Can I get your endorsement for November?

I'm currently writing up a November Tax Levy measure for Parks and Community development . You have to Pay to play.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote ah2:
Quote WorkerBee:

To me the fundamental question is "do organizations of citizens have rights?"

If the answer to this question is No then does that not mean that the federal government can shut down groups like the Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute, MoveOn and, ironically, even the good folks at MoveToAmend....

No... The question is: Should organizations of citizens retain the same rights of the individuals that comprise them? If not, which rights do they retain and which do they not?

Ok, do you believe that freedom of speech is one of those rights?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

@ Peirmont

If your point is that the corporate tax code is a complete illogical mess I think you will find few people who disagree with you.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote ah2:

Really because when I join a union I lose the right to bargain with my employer.

You did not LOSE it. You GAVE IT AWAY on the promise of better pay and benefits. or as you said " I legally pass my bargaining power to a union". funny how you have 2 conflicting statements in the same paragraph.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote ah2:

I find it interesting that this entire conversation has revolved around tax liablility and not the other benefits companies enjoy. For example, if I happen to kill someone and I have incorporated as an LLC, presumably I would just have to pay a fine rather than go to jail or lose any more my rights. Massey Energy and BP have both enjoyed this perk, why shouldn't I?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/29/bp-managers-gulf-oil-spill-possible-manslaughter-charges

BP managers could face manslaughter charges over Gulf oil spill.

ah2, I wouldn't suggest trying it. But would make for a fasinating but extremely short trial.

Capital.0's picture
Capital.0
Joined:
May. 22, 2012 3:21 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

@ Peirmont

If your point is that the corporate tax code is a complete illogical mess I think you will find few people who disagree with you.

The tax code is a mess. But where was I making that point in this thread?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

You were talking about the write offs businesses have.

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm
Quote WorkerBee:

You were talking about the write offs businesses have.

They are simply a reality. I wasn't saying I agreed or disagreed. I take plenty for my own real-world business. If you haven't gotten it yet, my original post was a joke.... or maybe not. I should talk to my lawyer! LOL

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 2:19 pm

I understood that it was a joke, just didn't get your underlying point

:P

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

Pier,you touch a nerve,the 1%,ers are coming out the woodwork. They cannot see the 99% using their "twilight zone logic" to our benefit. I hope the OWS/99% is paying attention! These people will really be over the creek,we reverse there insane arguments. If they call Obama, Hitler,what do that make them? Is there anything more worse then the "devil"?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

If you don't like your union you can 1) quit, 2) organize your workplace to change your union, or 3) organize your workplace to get rid of your union. Its the regulations/legalities of unionization that make this possible. You can't give up your rights.

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I love the idea that individuals negotiating with their employers can do better than solidarity and unions. History has show the reverse, and where "right to work (for less)" operates, you won't find employers getting generous when they can divide and conquer.

Now, lets stipulate that there are some businesses where bosses and managers DO appreciate the asset value of their employees. They pay living plus wages to keep good people. They want them to be healthy, and in enough cases to be worth mentioning, the human relationships extend to giving the employees time off when needed for family needs and employer loyalty. These are not investor run companies, of course, they are personal owners or stores with a culture and tradition of quality.

They are totally against the stream of contemporary finance thinking and have to compete with others who want to drive down wages and cut corners on quality to lower prices. Their accountants can see that firing people before their pensions and benefits are vested means big savings. The whole Global Corporate is about labor arbitrage and resource exploitation, not free markets and comparative advantages.

Were all employers running family businesses or operating with a quality and service first and the money will follow value culture, unions probably would not be necessary. But, I think when the scale of employment moves beyond the easy personal, owners and management are served very well by having their employees unionized with negotiators who can be trusted to work with. What gets in the way of this is attitude. Bosses want to be bosses, and this leaves workers feeling dissed and needing to confront. In other words, when bosses understand who is creating the value, they go a long way to do what unions would do. Unions should not bother those who see this, so the only ones pissed off are those who want to screw their workers. Or those who feel insulted. Neither is a valid reason to oppose unions.

Unions are not perfect either. The worst are where the bosses have cut deals to corrupt the union as representative of the workers. Second worse are where strikes are the only way to get management to be responsible. Neither of these scenarios really shows why management ought to have a good relationship with the representatives of the workers. They do not have to be adversaries.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Drc2,you`re so right,"we don`t have to be adversaries". What`s the next logical step after a workers & owners partnership? How do all the widget makers come to agree we don`t need so many widget makers? How do we get workers to share work,take 6 month vacations in cycles to share work? How do we share the total production & wealth and still be "sustainable with mother nature"? The answers will come easy to "open minds"!

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Why do we need fewer widget makers?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

You cannot understand,you don`t believe climate change. You think another earth can be created and you have a spaceship ready to take you to another world when you finish destroying this one. Or you think another dog will eat you,so you don`t have to worry about anything. How many widgets do you need?

tayl44's picture
tayl44
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

How do you tell billions of people that they and their children and their children's children must continue to live in abject poverty?

WorkerBee's picture
WorkerBee
Joined:
Apr. 28, 2012 12:22 pm

They can live in your house.

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

It’s Time for Bill O’Reilly to Get Real about White Privilege

It’s time for white America to get real about white privilege. Last night, Bill O’Reilly came from back vacation early to host a special edition of “The Factor”, one that he said would “tell the truth” about what’s going on in Ferguson, Missouri.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system