"just and fair"? If you think giving food to someone who voluntarily walked out on a very well paid job with GREAT benefits, and is receiving a paycheck to strike, instead of the indigient and truly needy, you've got a pretty warped idea of justice an fairness IMHO!

Yes Bob, the Obama recession! That's as funny as Bill O'Really speaking about "Morals". You know what i'm talking about.

By all means, Bob... give to a church or local township pantry. I bet every single person who donated food for the strikers also donates food to other needy people. Because that is what decent human beings do.

Actually, giving food products instead of money to ANY charity is a poor way of most effectively providing food for the poor.

Say you spend 4 bucks for a box of cereal at the store and donate it. Most charitable organizations get bulk rate or wholesale prices, so if you donated that 4 bucks you could have gotten two boxes of the same cereal for the hungry for the same cost. If you have canned foods around the house you KNOW you're not going to use, go ahead and donate it. It's foolish to buy new canned foods from the store for a food drive,JUST DONATE THE MONEY AND SERVE THE POOR BETTER!

Yes, Bob, they get $150 a week no matter the size of the family. Try living on that and see how much money there is left for food after paying the bills that keep a roof over your head.

And as a matter of fact the South Suburban MoveOn Council, as a group, has donated food to a local township food pantry. And we didn't care why the people seeking help were out of work, and we didn't care that the food pantry was in a very Republican suburb and that there was probably a wide political gulf between many of the users of the pantry and our members. We donated the food simply because people needed help in feeding their families.

Ron Kurowski

FAIL

Red Ron, it seems the union funds used for paying union executives and bribing politicians has left the union strike relief fund very low. Perhaps it's time the union started using the dues to protect its workers instead of corrupting politicians and paying "CEO level" salaries and benefits to their directors! If I were one of these strikers I'd want to know where those substantial dues went if not to protect my family in the event of a strike!

Maybe the Church should give to the food pantry. They have the $$$$$ .....

@ rock bobster,
What are you implying with Red bob comment?
Union dues do not go to lobbying.Union dues are for running the business of the union:arbitration, paying for full time representation (including legal advice and representation) for the workers grievances,negotiating with companies for a decent contract,sometimes paying for benefits and pensions and sometimes strike funds.Members donate on a VOLUNTARY basis to Political Action Committees or PAC, if they want to support lobbying for political purposes.
Many Republicans, activists on the right, right wing media outlets, love to paint unions the way you described them, bobster, the real threat that unions pose is a voice of the common worker which is supported by the union membership with votes.All the members in a given union are not forced to vote for any candidate but it is clearly communicated to the membership what candidates favor workers and their rights. There is no comparison to the millions that ceos of companies get, to that of the union elected officers.There isn't a union that could afford those salaries.The money that unions have in their treasury and how it is spent is revealed at every union meeting. I take issue with the red Bob comment if your implying that unions are anything but a highly democratic organization that represents the rights of it's workers...

Sorry, I meant red Ron comment

Russ, I don't know if you're dishonest or just poorly informed. check out the non-partisan http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php .It shows that since 1989 the UAW has been the 18th highest political lobbying donator in the nation at over $28 million. That came from union dues, my friend. 98% went to Democrats. In fact most all of the organized political donations went to Dems. SEIU makes the Koch brothers look like cheapskates!

Advice for the future: don't lie about things that are easily verifiable!

Bobster,
I did not lie and I am not dishonest, just trying to clear up some confusion that your trying to spread with your comments. The site you sent showed the contribution, not how it was obtained. Here is the law regarding union contributions to federal campaigns

Labor Union Political Activity Under the Federal
Election Campaign Act of 1971, as Amended
Generally, political activities by labor unions in federal elections are prohibited.7
First, the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 prohibited labor union8
contributions to federal election campaigns. Later, the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971, as amended, (FECA), generally continued this broad prohibition of labor
union activities and funds in federal elections. However, the FECA provided for three
broad exemptions to this general prohibition of labor union political activities in
federal elections: (1) communications by a labor organization directed at its members
or their families on any subject: (2) non-partisan voter registration and get-out-the-
vote activities by a labor organization which are directed to its members or their
families: and (3) the establishment and administration of a political action committee
or separate segregated fund (commonly known as a PAC) for the purpose of the
solicitation of contributions to such fund for political purposes.9 Generally, any other

contd. from previous comment
type of political activity by labor unions in federal elections is prohibited under the
FECA, and labor union contributions and expenditures concerning federal elections
outside these exceptions are prohibited.

Bobster,
The unions can't compete with money from super pacs like Karl Rove's American Crossroads funded secretly by billionaires like the Koch brothers .

Bobster ,
here is an explanation of union dues for the CWA:
http://cwa89177.org/whereduesgo.htm

Obvoiusly from the posting I gave you, Russ, there are numerous loopholes that allow unions to get money to their "favorite sons" lease explain to me how the unions were able to get tens of millions into Obama's campaign if it was against the law?

Regarding the Kochs and the liberal billionaire donations, the web site I referenced show that the union "laundered" contributions FAR exceeded the contributions given by Consevative PACs. Throw in George Soros' ill gotten gains that he donates to destroy th American economy and "sell short" the US dollar as he did in Great Britain, and there really is no contest between liberal contributions and coinservative ones.

Perhaps more telling is that George Soros "invests" in destroying America's economy and is an internationalist, and the Koch brothers donate to grow the American economy. No question who the better ones to follow are there, especially if American prosperity is your goal!

Bobster,
the only thing that is obvious to me is you, jumping to negative conclusions about union members dues being used to bribe politicians .A typical right wing talking point.The UAW has a billion dollars in assets of which 62 million is used for investments.Could be where thy get some money for lobbying.Why not?They have to stick up for their membership.
http://www.unionfacts.com/union/United_Auto_Workers
Prior to the Supreme courts decision in 2010 on Citizen united the unions were on a more even playing field (i.e.if you call 18th in contributions for UAW) for political contributions.Now the Koch brothers and all the other HIDDEN billionaires and millionaires can and do get contributions from all around the world for the republican party and their lobbyists thanks to the citizens united decision, which dwarfs what the unions and the democratic party can contribute to the democratic party and their lobbyists today.

Chron, the way you compete with lower labor rates overseas is by concentrating on developing skills and services the overseas firms cannot, or are not culturally able, to provide.

If hourly rates are a problem, you develop technology to improve productivity (hours per value produced) so that the costs of transportation from overseas, as well as the "corruption costs" of doing business in Asia, put the true cost of importation more expensive than producing here.

You'll never be able to bring "smokestack" industries and jobs back here because of the prohibitive regulatory environment imposed not by elected officials but by unelected biased bureaucrats. You could pay 10 cents per hour and you STILL couldn't operate the businesses in China and India back here!

Perhaps the biggest problems is the government business tax environment in the US. Despite false claims about the "Bush Tax Cuts" , the US now has the HIGHEST tax rates in the WORLD since Japan dropped their rates. There are literally TRILLIONS of dollars held overseas by US corporations and subsidiaries that the corporations would LOVE to invest here, but confiscatory tax policy prevents them from doing it

While I disagree with the main point of your argument, I must give you credit for having a well researched and carefully constructed criticism.

"the obstacles to job growth and prosperity are mostly governmental. It's necessary to change our government to pro-growth to get us out of the mess Pelosi and Reid started in 2007 and Obama perpetuated since 2009."
Yep COB it is the old Bob

1)Yeah, COB, the people of Chicago really need to be protected from getting the things they need, including medicine, food and clothing, and getting jobs that will help pay the bills and get them off of Obama welfare. Couldn't have that, could we?
2) The problem with paying $180K to a PE teacher doing the same job as a $40K teacher in the same district is that it's taking about $120K away from providing the extra school hours and school days our children need to be globally competitive. Market value for that job is about $60K for a REALLY good PE teacher, paying $180K for $$60K value is nothing less than THEFT from families and the children!
3) I see, holding the devils accountable from their dirty deeds is somehow "Evil" in your twisted mind. Bush, Pelosi, and Reid CAUSED the problems, Obama merely perpetuated them!

COB, I work for a large multi-national company as an accountant. They are constantly replacing 40 year old middle managers (HR staff, IT staff, etc) for 30 year old staff level people to save money. They also outsource positions to different contries all the time. We constantly have to improve our skill set and take on more work to survive. The company makes a ton of money and they still would dump me in a minute to save money if they could. As Homewood Jim said it is just economics and it doesn't just apply to teachers and machinists in unions. I don't blame the management, they have to do these things to keep their jobs. Of course I hate to see people lose their jobs but things are changing in this country and I don't have much empathy left for the unions. I am changing my expectations so why shouldn't they change theirs.

My expectations have changed to meet the market. I don't always believe in efficient free markets (i.e. health care) but I do believe that it is clear what your worth in the labor market. If you are worth more, you should be able to go get it. I also think the suits are part of the same labor market and supply and demand dictates their salaries. That said, the SEC has taken steps in recent years to give retail investors a "say on pay vote." (investors have a vehicle to give their opinion on the executive comp package) The SEC did this because there was some abuse. For the most part, the investors have given a thumbs up to the executive comp. You can look at the results of CAT's vote to get an indication of what your investors thought of your CEO's bonus.