Liberal Hypocrisy

I've long said people are liberal / progressive right up until the ideology affects their wallet directly. People only want other people to pay for liberalism...

So Cenk Uyger of The Young Turks didn't want his employees to unionize! So after touting all the progressive talking points including supporting unions, he now doesn't want his own company to be unionized because.... wait for it... "if there has been union at the network, it would not grown as much as it has." Oh, no sh*t sherlock! This is why businesses don't like unions. They add cost and inefficiencies to a business.

Of course, now that it is YOUR POCKET that is being impacted, you want to rationalize why unions are bad. GTFOH!

The Young Turks Founder Discouraged Unionization

a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

a reply to: Edumakated

Good lord, can’t Cenk just crawl into a hole and die somewhere?

No one would miss him.

P.s. anyone member when Dinesh D’Souza mopped the floor with Cenk in a public debate?

a reply to: Edumakated

Unions are great! Unless they try to unionize my business, because unions destroy business.

Cenk was great in 2016. Watching his show completely implode in utter defeatism and screaming profanities the whole time was an epic moment in progressive failure. I have never seen anything like it. I honestly don't think it can be out done.

That one fake blond chick co-star he has is the gift that keeps giving. If somebody packing ended up saving her life she would scoop her own feces in a paper bag and set it on fire on their doorstep and not think twice about it. Truly sinister skank progressive trash.

Bernie Sanders did the same thing, spouting off about paying people at least 15 dollars minimum wage but not wanting to pay people who were working for him that much.

a reply to: Edumakated

Unions were never an idea planted by 'liberals' tho...

a reply to: Edumakated

If leftists didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any.

a reply to: watchitburn

You can say that about literally any group with a certain political affiliation.

a reply to: JHumm

Sanders fabricated it all. He wanted his workers to unionize, and they organized and voted as a collective for a raise. And he gave it to them.

He's not an idiot, but seems like a lot of his critics sure are gullible to see that workers can't prove their worth through organization. Hell, even Friedman; even through his intense double speak couldn't beat down worker organization.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Edumakated

Liberalism is always great when it's other people's money.

So have CEOs when it comes to ranking it in away from the workers.

a reply to: Edumakated

I agree. Maybe unions are not the answer. Maybe the answer is having wages based on a system of shares. The company's profit is then divided among the workers according to a worker's number of shares. This way the CEO gets his lion share but the workers have incentive to be at their best productivity throughout the year. The number of shares each worker gets could also be higher based on the number of years of service to the company. Essentially wages are percentage based instead of random reasons that always end up causing the workers to be disgruntled.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Edumakated

I agree. Maybe unions are not the answer. Maybe the answer is having wages based on a system of shares. The company's profit is then divided among the workers according to a worker's number of shares. This way the CEO gets his lion share but the workers have incentive to be at their best productivity throughout the year. The number of shares each worker gets could also be higher based on the number of years of service to the company. Essentially wages are percentage based instead of random reasons that always end up causing the workers to be disgruntled.

That's called employee stock options. Most f500 companies and start ups offer to employees.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: JHumm

Sanders fabricated it all. He wanted his workers to unionize, and they organized and voted as a collective for a raise. And he gave it to them.

He's not an idiot, but seems like a lot of his critics sure are gullible to see that workers can't prove their worth through organization. Hell, even Friedman; even through his intense double speak couldn't beat down worker organization.

Did he use his money or donners money? Which is other peoples money just the same.

a reply to: JON666

How is that any different then using shareholders money or the customers money to give employee raises? At the end of the day it comes out of his salary as well.

They aren't hypocrites. They're just good at business.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Edumakated

Unions were never an idea planted by 'liberals' tho...

You are correct, that is totally a Socialist/Communist/Fascist thing.

Title of the post is redundant.

You can stop at "Liberal".. the hypocricy is expected.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Edumakated
I agree. Maybe unions are not the answer. Maybe the answer is having wages based on a system of shares. The company's profit is then divided among the workers according to a worker's number of shares. This way the CEO gets his lion share but the workers have incentive to be at their best productivity throughout the year.

I actually have no problem with such a system, as long as 'the workers' don't get to dictate to the business owner how those shares are divvy'd up.

The number of shares each worker gets could also be higher based on the number of years of service to the company.

No, no way, absolutely not. There is nothing more heinous and counter-productive than the ridiculous 'seniority' standard.

The only time that standard should ever be used, is when the other factors are weighed and results in a 'tie' - for example, if the company is going through hard times and has to downsize, determining who is laid off should be based on the workers worth to the company, and if two or more workers 'tie' for the lay-off slot, then the seniority factor could be used to break the tie.

Essentially wages are percentage based instead of random reasons that always end up causing the workers to be disgruntled.

No. Just no. Wages are determined by what the market will bear. Period.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Unions were a direct response to capitalists over reaching for more and more and giving less and less.

It would have happened with or without socialism or communism, etc. Workers and slave revolts arent a new concept in human history you know.