All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 27, 2009 - Rush Limbaugh Program
37:39
November 27, 2009, Friday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
In the first place, we're making a big mistake by calling them the Somali pirates.
These are not pirates.
These are merchant marine organizers.
They are using the same techniques that community organizers like Acorn and others in this country use.
So from now on, to be totally purely accurate, The Somali pirates on this program, I'll probably slip up a couple times and call them that, but they're going to be known now as the Merchant Marine Organizers.
Live from the Southern Command in sunny South Florida, it's open line Friday.
Oh, yip, yip, yip, yip, yahoo.
It's our favorite day of the week.
Actually, Monday is our favorite day of the week.
You know, which is when we get to come back to work.
But Friday ranks very close.
For those of you new to the program, and there are millions of you, we do things a little differently on Friday.
You might not notice it if I didn't tell you, but nevertheless, we do.
Monday through Thursday, we take phone calls only about things that interest me, but on Friday, we'll take calls from anybody about anything.
Essentially, when we go to the phones on Friday, the callers, rank amateurs, own the content of this program.
Here's the telephone number if you want to be on the program, 800-282-2882, the email address, lrushbaugh at eibnet.com.
Look, the Somali pirates and community organizers, they shake down private sector businesses.
The Somali pirates claim they don't want to hurt anybody, although the captain did escape, but they recaptured him, and now they're threatening violence.
You got to laugh.
This is not funny, but you have to laugh at a bunch of community organizers in basically a lifeboat surrounded by U.S. destroyers, which appear to be powerless.
You have to be, you just have to, you have to laugh at this.
All the merchant marine organizers want is money from evil capitalists with big boats.
The same as the Acorn community organizers out of Chicago.
The same as the community organizers harassing and protesting AIG executives in Connecticut and New York.
So the merchant marine organizers on the high seas, and Obama doesn't want to get his hands dirty with this.
And Reuters has a story lamenting, oh, it's such an unfortunate distraction for our new president.
He's got so many big plans to save America, and then the merchant marine organizers show up.
And it's just, oh, it's such, it's an unfortunate distraction.
The brilliant John Kerry, who, by the way, served in Vietnam, is now going to conduct hearings, pirate hearings.
They're going to conduct hearings in the U.S. Senate on the pirates and try to come up with a policy on this.
Time magazine today.
Let me find this.
I think I have it here right under the first page of the stack.
For some reason, the pages are sticking together.
Yes.
It doesn't help that Somalis have a marked aversion to foreign forces.
Here is Time Magazine's description of the merchant marine organizers.
Fiercely conservative and suspicious of outsiders.
So the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers, are fiercely conservative.
I just am surprised that Time magazine did not include in their report that the merchant marine organizers want President Obama to fail.
That would have been the piece des résistance.
Well, I don't know if the community organized the merchant marine organizers are listening to this program on a pirate radio station, but there are radio stations all over the world that pirate this broadcast.
Who knows?
They may be tuning in.
And folks, I've got a picture here that's just fablish.
It's a blog called The Root.com.
And this is a post by Deo Olopati.
And it is a picture.
It is a picture of yet another busy day at the White House.
It's a picture of Obama and Hillary sitting in the White House South Lawn Playground.
They decided to get out of the White House to have their chat, the first chat since Obama got back from giving away the United States at the G20 meeting.
Here, I'm going to zoom in on it on the ditto cam so you can see this thing.
We'll link to it at rushlimbaugh.com, but that's as close as I can get.
But that's Obama there on the left with Mrs. Clinton behind the swing set.
They're at a little picnic table there out in the white.
Another busy day at the White House as Mrs. Clinton, the Secretary of State, discusses various things with President Obama regarding the Merchant Marine organizers.
Here's this Reuters story.
Ragtag teams of modern-day blackbeards are posing an annoying distraction for Barack Obama, forcing him to add Somalia to an already long list of foreign policy challenges.
First, North Korea, next, Iran, and now the Somali pirates, the merchant marine organizers.
American presidents are told to expect the unexpected.
Obama is seeing that this week, first, it was a North Korean test of a ballistic missile last week about which nothing has been done.
The reaction to Kim Jong-il's launch of that missile is nothing but chirping crickets.
Nothing's been done.
Now comes a swashbuckling high seas standoff with armed merchant marine organizers.
Obama so far has sent U.S. Navy ships to protect an American-flagged freighter that managed to repel the attack by the merchant marine organizers, but whose captain was taken hostage.
It's so unfortunate.
It is so unfortunate.
It's just another distraction.
And there's a hilarious post at a blog called the Ex-Urban League.
And I want to read excerpts of this to you.
This is just funny.
Obama reaches out to the moderate pirate community is the headline here.
Obviously, this incident has raised many concerns among Americans.
There have been calls for justice and even violence against the misguided perpetrators, but such an emotional reaction has led to the disparagement of entire groups with which we are unfamiliar.
We have seen this throughout history.
This is Obama speaking.
For too long, America has been too dismissive of the proud culture and invaluable contributions of the pirate community.
Whether it's their pioneering work with prosthetics, husbandry of tropical birds, or fanciful fashion sense, America owes a deep debt to the pirates.
The past eight years have shown a failure to appreciate the historic role of these noble seafarers.
Instead of celebrating their entrepreneurial spirit and seeking to partner with them to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and have been dismissive, even derisive, of these merchant marine organizers.
Some of us wonder if our current overseas contingency operation would even be needed had the last administration not been so quick to label pirates as thieves, terrorists, or worse.
Such swashbucklophobia can lead to tragic results, as we have seen this week.
This is a parody of the way the White House would be looking at the pirate situation.
The New York Times, the New York Times is excited.
The New York Times is enthralled.
They have a story today headlined by this standoff with pirates shows U.S. power has limits.
The New York, did you see that?
The New York Times is excited that here we have a bunch of merchant marine organizers in basically a life raft.
And we're surrounded, they are surrounded by the armaments of the United States Navy, and nothing can be done.
The Indian Ocean standoff between an $800 million United States Navy destroyer and four merchant marine organizers bobbing in a lifeboat showed the limits of the world's most powerful military as it faces a booming pirate economy.
God.
God.
New York, a booming pirate economy because people are paying them the ransom.
They're no different than Acorn.
They extort.
They're being paid the ransom.
Why would they stop?
They really don't want to harm anybody, just as Acorn doesn't want to harm.
But if you push them too far, like bring in your $800 million destroyer, then they may threaten to kill a captain.
So the New York Times revels here in this impotence that we seem to have.
This destroyer could wipe this little four-merchant marine organizer life.
I could vaporize it like that.
We're not powerless in the sense the New York Times means it.
Where we are powerless is in the sense of our will.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's just no more complicated than that.
This is eventually going to get solved.
One way or the other, the standoff between the United States and the merchant marine organizers from Somalia will get solved.
I want to predict to you the headline.
The first, well, maybe not the headline, but the first words in the story will be something like this.
Thanks to the cool hand of President Obama.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Let's go to some audio sound bites here.
Here's Robert Gibbs, the most brilliant, educated, smartest, quickest, wittiest press secretary ever, they've told us at White House briefing room.
Unidentified reporter, can you tell us about the president's specific role over the last couple days?
Has he been involved in the decision-making on how to handle a merchant marine organizers, how the FBI and the Navy proceed, or does that not rise to the level of the president?
The president has followed the situation closely, has got updates throughout yesterday and today.
And obviously, his main concern is for the safety of the captain and the rest of the crew on the ship.
And he will continue to receive those updates.
He's staying apprised of the situation.
Yeah, he's staying apprised of it.
He's out there acting like an infomercial salesman trying to sell his new mortgage plan yesterday, keeping his distance here from the plan from the merchant marine organizers.
But he's keeping tabs on the situation.
We're all staying apprised of it, by the way.
Obama's not the only one staying apprised of it.
We are all staying apprised.
So we are all apparently acting presidential as we are staying apprised of the situation with the Somali community organizer, merchant marine organizers.
Here's David Rodham Gergen last night on CNN.
Anderson Cooper said, pressure like this is extraordinary.
We got word the president is also talking about tackling immigration this year.
Do you think he's trying to do we've asked this before, but it seems more important now than ever.
Is he trying to do too much?
I don't think he's trying to do too much on the international front.
I question whether they need to get him up in the middle of the night to tell him things when it's, you know, we knew the Iranian, I mean, the North Korean test was coming, for example.
I don't think you have to get him up for pirates or something like that.
I think those things can be handled in the morning.
On the pirate question, Anderson, using Hillary Clinton out front and not Barack Obama.
He didn't want to take it.
Elect somebody else.
Yeah, I thought that was very smart.
He doesn't want to get in the middle of this.
It's messy.
You know, the man's life is at stake, and it's extremely important how we handle that.
But he doesn't want to micromanage that situation.
That's what he's got a government for.
Really?
So he's too busy.
With all this minutiae, it's smart to let Hillary handle the pirates.
Things like this, not worth waking him up over, a northern North Korean launch.
This is what he has a government for.
Just like George Bush had a government to work with Katrina, right?
Just like George Bush.
By the way, has anybody seen the latest body count coming out of Iraq?
I have not seen those.
I haven't.
I mean, there used to be a daily running tally of body counts, deaths, injuries, and so forth at Iraq.
Haven't seen that.
I'm sure, but that's too distracting as well for Obama, who's busy selling a mortgage plan.
That's horse daughter's right.
We're talking about housing.
We're going to talk about housing and the teleprompter and everything up there on the merchant marine organizers, so I really can't say anything about it.
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called for hearings on the mounting piracy threat.
By the way, well, I just shouldn't interrupt myself.
I am still getting emails today from subscribers to my website over the fact that I lied to him about meeting with Obama.
I just, because what made me think of that is this is a story about Kerry and in his hearings on this.
The Foreign Relations Committee called for hearings on the mounting piracy threat as the fate of an American cargo ship captain remained in limbo yesterday.
These acts of piracy off of Somalia's coastline may seem surreal, but they're all too real and a thorough policy debate's long overdue.
Said the haughty John Kerry, who once served in Vietnam.
I plan to hold hearings to further examine the growing threat of piracy and all the policy options that need to be on the table before the next fire drill becomes an international incident with big implications.
Vice President Biden was less, Karl Rove is called a liar now.
Biden, I mean, why does anybody think Biden ever tells the truth?
Here was the guy who forced out a 1988 presidential campaign for plagiarism, copying a British MP named Neil Kinnock.
And there are other examples.
Vice President Biden was less forthcoming about the unfolding drama.
When asked at an economic recovery meeting Thursday what the U.S. was going to do, he said, it's being worked on.
It's being worked on around the clock since this happened.
I'm not in a position right now to comment on it.
Biden said his pool reporters were shown the door.
But he did say, Jim Jones, Jim's working around the clock on this.
We're working.
We're working.
I mean, we're working really, really hard.
We're working around the clock.
I got to take a brief timeout as Open Line Friday goes to our first obscene profit timeout back after this.
I'm still laughing over David Rodam Gergen.
The president of the United States is too busy.
Too busy to get a phone call at 3 o'clock in the morning that the Norcs have launched a missile or that merchant marine organizers have seized a U.S. cargo vessel.
Now, the Constitution claims, says, doesn't claim, says that the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief.
The Constitution of the United States doesn't say a word about housing, health care, mortgage refinancing, or anything else of that nature.
But he's too busy on all those other things, according to David Rodham Gergen, to be concerned about an incident involving an American cargo ship on the high seas that has now resulted in an $800 million U.S. naval destroyer being on sea.
Too busy to be occupied with that.
Yesterday on this program, we had a phone call from a, what was it, an economic student at the University of Tennessee.
His name was Jordan.
And he wanted me to explain to him supply-side economics because his professor was ripping supply-side economics from top to bottom, claiming it led to income inequality.
And we spent a good, what was it, 25 minutes on the phone with the young guy.
And I thought, you know, we, we, those of us who are involved in all this every day, we just take it for granted people know what it is.
It's a big mistake.
It's frustrating.
I mean, because the Reagan years led to a 25-year boom.
You look at the GDP of nations around the world in the 1980s and look at them today prior to this crash, and there's no doubt that the Reagan boom was responsible for worldwide economic growth, not just in the United States.
So we assume when real world experiences cause people to vastly improve their prosperity, increase their prosperity, their job opportunities, economic security, we assume that people living in the midst of this understand why.
And it's sad to admit that apparently they don't.
Because if the 80s were instructive and if the economics of so-called supply-side, it's really just capitalism.
If the economics of capitalism and its superiority were demonstrably responsible for an increase in the standard of living profoundly in this country, which it was, you would figure that people would understand it.
But by virtue of recent elections and so forth, they don't.
The only possible exception to what I'm saying, and I hope that the exception is true, because I frankly don't like being so pessimistic to have to think we have to just keep drilling into people the truth about capitalist economics, supply, say, whatever you want to call it, the basic tenets of the founding liberty and freedom.
We do, I know we do, because they're constantly under assault at the academic level and in the media.
And you hope that real world experience will trump, this is the ultimate hope is that people living their lives, seeing what's happened in their lives based on various economic policies, will be able to spot the lies they're being told.
But when the lie is constant and when it is infiltrated with emotion and so forth, it's and the first sign of economic trouble, here come the anti-capitalists saying, see, see, see, it ultimately doesn't work.
It leads to inequality.
It's unfair and blah, blah, blah.
When you couple that, and this is the possible exception that is sort of ameliorates my pessimism here.
When you couple it with the fact that there hasn't been a Republican president espoused capitalism since Ronald Reagan, when you couple it with the fact that the Republican Party has not given voters a similar option to Ronald Reagan since then, then it sort of makes sense why they elected one.
The Democrats are always going to pose one degree of socialism or another in a candidate.
This is just the most extreme.
The Republicans used to provide an alternative.
They don't.
Time to get back to that, so I'm going to spend some more time on this today.
We're back.
Rush Limbaugh, America's truth detector, real anchorman, doctor of democracy, general all-around good guy, harmless, lovable, little fuzzball.
Yesterday on the program, when we ran out of time, we were talking to a caller from Virginia named Joe, Joe from Pulaski, Virginia, very nice guy, who wanted to take me to task for my stance on unions, and we just ran out of time, and it's a good call.
We asked Joe if we could call him back.
He said, yes, so here he is.
Joe, welcome back to the program.
Hey, thank you, Rush.
How are you doing?
Just fine, sir.
Let's start at the beginning.
You called your original point to me was what?
The original point was that not all of us were born, or not everyone was born with a multi-million dollar talent or a multi-million dollar entrepreneurial spirit.
But there were a multitude of us who were born with the ambition and the drive and the desire to go out and to, you know, to work and to make the best living that we possibly can.
And the truth of the matter is, corporate greed does exist.
And I know your view of the union representatives is entirely different from mine.
And I think, you know, by using a couple examples, I can show you what my perspective is.
Okay, before you go there, would you define?
I like to define terms.
Okay.
Because you have just and you've just used a debate technique that is found frequently in the Ivy League.
I'm sure you'll agree with me, Rush, before I've had a chance to agree or not, that there is corporate greed.
So would you, would you, I depend, you know, I think greed is one of these things like selfishness that has to be defined properly.
What is corporate greed?
Okay.
Corporate greed, in my opinion, is where a corporation will work their workers and use them to their advantage.
And when it comes time for that particular employee to gain a particular benefit from their labor, the corporation will do something to that employee to dismiss them and have them to lose their benefits.
And I have a perfect example of that.
My father-in-law worked for a company locally here.
And with 20 years of service, he would have gained a pension with that particular company.
When he was four months short of that 20-year anniversary date, he was laid off and did not get his pension plan.
They never called him back to work.
Things like that do exist.
But getting back to the union aspect of it, you know, there are a lot of conservative-minded union people out here who see the need for corporate profits because we understand that if the corporation does not profit, neither do we.
And I know that your opinion of the corporate or the union heads is very like your opinion of these Somali pirates.
You know, the main objective is to, you know, capture the company, take it over, and hold it hostage until all of their erroneous demands are met.
You know, but my opinion of the union...
Now, wait a minute.
You have, again, you have just said that my opinion of union leaders is to equivocate them with the merchant marine organizers off the coast of Somalia?
Right, because their main objective, you know, I believe, you know, from listening to you, in your opinion, their main objective is to hold the company hostage until they meet their demands.
But in my opinion, you know, union representatives are there just like a pro football player's agent is there for him.
They are there to miss it.
Now, that's you're, look, I understand the point you're trying to make, but that analogy breaks down on one of the fundamental problems I have with unions.
And it's, I want to go back to the top.
You said not all of us are born with, what do you say, million-dollar talent or entrepreneurial spirit.
Right.
Well, you know, I don't know that anybody's born with a talent.
I think.
It is God-given talent, Rush, and you are the perfect example of that.
It's loaned by God, but you have to develop it.
You have to react.
You have God-given it.
See, okay, you're using me.
Every effort was made in my young life to get me to conform to certain behavioral standards, to certain preparatory standards for being an adult, and I rebelled against most of them because I did.
Pardon?
Just as I did.
My entire family is liberals, and I'm the only conservative in the bunch.
Okay.
But I use my own example.
Nobody at any time when I was growing up thought I had any talent.
Nobody.
In fact, I was the one my family was worried about because I quit everything they made me do, from Boy Scouts to Cub Scouts.
I quit.
They didn't think I had the ability to do anything.
I didn't even get good grades, and I didn't like school.
But you knew you did.
Well, I knew what I loved.
Exactly.
I knew what my passion was.
I also knew, now I didn't come from a background of family members who were members of unions, but I knew that the product of the way I was raised and just something instinctive inside me, I knew that I was going to have to do it myself.
I wanted to do it myself.
I did not want to be pushed up the ladder by anybody.
I didn't want anybody running interference for me because nobody was.
And you and I share that same sentiment.
All right.
Now, here's my conclusion from this.
You say that not everybody's born with whatever these million-dollar talents and abilities.
And I'll agree that not everybody's destined to become a millionaire.
And not everybody's destined to become some world-renowned entrepreneur like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, whoever.
But I do think that the vast majority of people are much more capable than even they know.
They have much more potential than even they know.
It's just that our society beats it out of them.
Our society, and by the way, I also believe that most limitations that people have are self-imposed.
Well, I can't really do that because somebody won't like me doing it or I'll have to move.
But there are fewer obstacles placed by other people standing in your way than you know.
They're just convenient when somebody puts an obstacle in your way to hide behind them.
But most of the limitations we have are self-imposed.
Now, if you want to, I've always said this, you want to join a union.
If anybody does, that's fine and dandy.
I just hope that you understand what you're doing because your union organizing is not your agent.
He's not Scott Boris going out and getting $270 million for you based on what you're producing and what you're earning.
Your union organizer doesn't even see you as anything but a name, a number.
It doesn't see your work.
He just sees you as part of the giant group, and he's going to go out and get a contract for the group.
And so the opportunity to maximize potential as a union member is abrogated to the whole group.
But there's one thing, Rush, that I feel like you're overlooking.
What?
And that is the fact that we don't have representatives that represent us on an individual basis like an NFL player would have with his agent.
Neither do I. Neither do we obtain the same talents that those NFL players have either.
But yet, we as a group, we are not pulled down to the bottom producer.
The bottom producers are lifted up to the highest producer standards, which increases their standard of living.
Yes, but see, that's not done because of their productivity.
It's done because of coercion.
It's not done because they have merited.
So what you're telling me is that the bottom feeders deserve to earn more simply because they're on the bottom.
That's not necessarily what I mean.
What I'm saying is you cannot blame the GM predicament on the union and the union leaders.
The blame must be put on the company executives who sat down and deliberated that union contract.
They should have had better foresight than that to have been able to look at the union.
Wait a second now.
It's not just that clean and cut.
But when you have Gettelfinger or whoever running the UAW, whoever it has been in the past, putting a gun to these executive heads and threatening a strike, while over at Toyota and Alexis, no such walkout is threatened.
There is a competitive pressure there that's been brought to bear.
See, I think it is, it offends my sensibilities.
Well, Rush.
Wait, wait, wait.
Let me finish the sentence.
It offends my sensibilities to ask anybody to pay me when I'm not working anymore.
It offends, I would never ask.
Exactly.
Well, but that's what unions do.
They demand to be paid more when they're not working than when they are.
They demand to be paid when they're fired.
They demand to be paid in lifetime pensions.
I have made the decision to provide that for myself.
But the GM executives should not have signed such a contract.
That's my entire point.
They should have said, no, we cannot do this.
And let them strike.
Let them go on strike.
Okay, all right, but they didn't.
They went ahead and signed it.
And I have said this, but now exactly what anybody with economic common sense knows, that has killed the golden goose.
And now where we are, where are we?
We are at the mothership that provides employment for the UAW members is barely hanging on.
And we hear that there are very few concessions that Gettelfinger is willing to make.
And Obama sides with the unions.
And so what's happening here is that politics has taken over.
There's no economics going on here.
If there were economics actually ruling this, none of what's happened in the last six months with the auto industry would be happening.
And here's, let me get even more esoteric with this.
Unions are collectivist in nature.
They are deeply political partisan.
The union leaders exist today to elect Democrats, and they will take your dues and everybody else's dues and spend them primarily for that purpose.
And as such, the union leadership, by definition, by structure, is working against the interests of the companies they owe their existence to.
You have a company who is trying to exist here in a capitalist free market, which has got as its number one employee group a leadership that is collectivist and socialist in neighborhood.
How is it possible for a union to be anti-free market capitalism and at the same time be of help to pro-free market capitalist companies?
It just doesn't work.
I'm not going to claim that.
All right.
Now, can we go back in history just for a moment?
Let me take a break.
We've got to take the profit center timeout here.
And we'll continue after this.
Don't go away.
And we're back with Joe from Pulaski, Virginia, who is arguing with me about his interpretation of my view of union workers, which I'm going to explain in the political sense here in greater detail in just a second.
You go ahead.
What point did you want to make here?
Can we go back in history just for a moment?
You can go back anywhere you want.
All right.
In the late 50s and the early 60s, the NFL players were busting theirselves wide open every Sunday for probably $1,200 to $1,800 a week.
That's right.
Now, given the popularity of the NFL was not that great at that particular point in time in history, but as the popularity grew and the profits for the owners began to grow, the players started to see this and they said, wait a minute, something is askew here.
These owners are making these massive profits at our expense.
So therefore, let's form a union and let's start negotiating for a share of those profits.
That's how the players union began.
Now, it was great and it was wonderful.
And I think if every corporation used the NFL's model as a argument and negotiating sense, things would be great.
Because you know that the players get 60% of the gross.
All right.
But now, but look what happened.
The owners, but see what happened.
The owners seen these salaries start to escalate and they said, wait a minute, we've got to put in a salary cap.
Therefore, they knew at that moment.
Players went along with the salary cap saved that damn league.
Exactly.
That's my point.
And there is common ground between corporations and union to save the entire situation.
All right, let me take you back here because you said you defined corporate greed when I asked you to define corporate greed.
You used a personal story.
Somebody in your family got laid off four months before pension time.
And I think you had a single experience happen.
You may have heard of a couple or three more of those.
I could sit here and tell you as a self-employed entrepreneur, I could tell you all the times I've been canned how unfair it's been.
You say I was born with talent.
I've spent a lifetime developing it.
I have never, I've never thought that my strength was going to be organizing myself into a group.
I am the epitome of the individual.
I am the smallest minority on earth.
I'm an individual, as everybody else is.
And I just, I hate to see people squander their potential.
I just do.
And it bothers me.
It bothers me greatly.
I think this is a common occurrence that people see something happen in a corporation and make a generalization, bad experience, hurt feelings, and so forth.
And it can lead you to think that that's how all corporations do businesses all the time.
If you had a Anybody, if anybody had a single bad, rotten experience with a woman, would they conclude that all women are the same?
Would they want a union to guarantee their relationships?
In other words, after they had been shafted.
Same thing with a woman and a man.
Turn it around the other way.
You know, I look at your union leadership and they just look at you as a source of confiscated money.
Your dues equal confiscated money for the Democrat Party.
So from a human personal standpoint, I just think so many Americans are underperforming their own potential.
You mentioned hard work.
Well, that's key to it.
Hard work and knowing what you love and want to do.
But let's get to the strictly political and philosophical about this because this, I think, is important.
Like I asked you, how is it possible for a union to be anti-free market capitalism and at the same time help a pro-free market, free market business or company?
It's a conflict of interest to me.
Unions that do not share the core values of a business owner shouldn't have anything to do with that business.
If the union's core value is punishing the business, shutting it down if necessary, constantly getting people to hate the business.
If the union's purpose is to create negative PR about the business, then how in the hell is that helping the business?
Unions that contribute to a political party that conducts war on prosperity.
Unions that donate money to a political party that is anti-capitalist and anti-free market shouldn't be allowed to have anything to do with the private sector because those unions are working against the private sector with their buddies in arms of the Democrat Party.
It makes no sense.
Unions that contribute to political parties that favor card check are a problem, not a solution.
Jobs here are at stake.
But I just don't understand what is magical about an employee base or a union leadership that opposes philosophically and structurally the very business that it claims to represent the employees of.
And we see the fallout here.
It's happening all across American business.
These two things are a conflict of interest and they are untenable.
Our nice caller used the NFL as an example.
Don't forget, would you rather get a raise because you're good or because everyone gets one every six months?
▲
Export Selection