Why did he not get a talk show on fox?

Anonymous wrote:

However because of the unions, chrysler paid better than those minimum wage jobs he refused to take.

Because of the unions? You meant the taxpayers, didn't you?

No, unions got the wages. Taxpayers are responsible for Chrysler even existing, despite Sam's opposition.

Anonymous wrote:

However because of the unions, chrysler paid better than those minimum wage jobs he refused to take.

Because of the unions? You meant the taxpayers, didn't you?

Well, Italian investors now technically.

However because of the unions, chrysler paid better than those minimum wage jobs he refused to take.

Because of the unions? You meant the taxpayers, didn't you?

Anonymous wrote:So, you fault him for working. I don't like the fact that he is working in a UAW job--but it sure beats "writing poetry" as Pelosi suggested people could do under Obamacare.

I am sure Joe aka Sam could have found other work besides Chrysler. However because of the unions, chrysler paid better than those minimum wage jobs he refused to take.

So, you fault him for working. I don't like the fact that he is working in a UAW job--but it sure beats "writing poetry" as Pelosi suggested people could do under Obamacare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't fault a man for working. Too bad he has no choice but to join a union. Is that democracy? A corporation cannot hire people who do not join the union?

He could move to Tennessee.

Plus if you think working in a non union workplace is a democracy, you are sorely mistaken.

Anonymous wrote:You can't fault a man for working. Too bad he has no choice but to join a union. Is that democracy? A corporation cannot hire people who do not join the union?

You are wrong. Workers always have the right not to be a member. However if the workplace is a union shop and not in a so called right to work state, workers must pay a fair share fee to cover the union's cost of representing him (e.g. Bargaining a contract that he benefits from or pursuing a grievance that he may file). This fair share fee does not include any of the union's expenses for political activity.

Anonymous wrote:You can't fault a man for working. Too bad he has no choice but to join a union. Is that democracy? A corporation cannot hire people who do not join the union?

This is the same sort of thinking that leads to people believing that you should have to buy insurance until you get sick. If a union negotiates a contract, manages to gain benefits and improved working conditions, why should a freeloader benefit? Do you think Sam could get a better deal negotiating with Chrysler as an individual? He would have no leverage and Chrysler would simply dictate the terms. Thanks to the union, the Chrysler job was the best one Sam could find.

Too funny. Shouldn't have run his mouth.

Anonymous wrote:You can't fault a man for working. Too bad he has no choice but to join a union. Is that democracy? A corporation cannot hire people who do not join the union?

He could move to Tennessee.

Fascinating!

I guess we should be happy he was able and willing to adapt

To be sure, his notoriety predates the Tea Party silliness. If you told me Rick Santelli joined a union I might chuckle.

I forget, how did Samuel's run for Congress end up?

You can't fault a man for working. Too bad he has no choice but to join a union. Is that democracy? A corporation cannot hire people who do not join the union?

http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2014/02/18/Joe-the-Plumber-says-he-s-in-UAW.html

Joe the Plumber is a union man now. But, he got called a "tea bagger" during his first week on the job so he is a little sad. Also, he opposed the government bailout of Chrysler and GM, but now works for Chrysler. Good thing Obama saved it for him.

Since Joe is neither a plumber nor named Joe, maybe we should start calling him Sam the Union Man?