- Joined
- Apr 13, 2011
- Messages
- 34,951
- Reaction score
- 16,311
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
not looking for profit?.. is that why part of their list of demands was more money?
Wages dont equal profits.
not looking for profit?.. is that why part of their list of demands was more money?
This is funny because the things that public workers often seek to accomplish through their unions benefit the public in the long term. For example, teacher's unions may fight for ensuring that every school has art, music, science lab and phys. ed. programs. This not only helps teachers, it also helps students at disadvantaged schools and in turn, the public in general. Similarly, police officers in a city like Chicago where crime has increased since Rahm Emanuel fired a bunch of police officers may fight to increase the police force as a condition of their union contract. This also helps the public....
Romney: Teacher contributions to politicians should be limited - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Unions are people, my friend.
Surely Romney would also agree then that corporations donating to politicians also creates a conflict of interest when those politicians make policy and contract decisions?
Oh wait. This is a Republican we're talking about. :lamo
And for the slow: I totally agree that this creates a conflict of interest. As do corporate donations.
Do you have sources for that?Generally speaking, strong unions in an area drive down wages for non-union workers in the area. It is just a correlation that has been observed by economists.
Well, teachers usually have limits on what they can legally bargain and strike for. Those limits are always things that directly affect teachers and are oftentimes restricted to salary, benefits and some things that affect working conditions. As a result, they can't strike on behalf of students alone. That isn't legal. They can't strike just for music programs. That isn't legal. However, because teacher and student interests line up a lot, teachers are able to fight for things that will help students and if you actually listen to what some union leaders and a lot of teachers say, then it will be clear that they are also fighting on behalf of students.I am not aware of instances where teachers unions have gone on strike to save the music. I know several teachers and what they like to complain about is that they have to work such long hours for the solid middle class income they make that is not enough for the 9 months a year they work; that they have too many students (which I totally agree with); or the number of days a school year they are being forced to work. If teachers in my area were to strike for art or music programs, I'd bring them doughnuts and march with them. Sadly, that is just not going to happen.
I'm sure there are those in the Romney campaign going "Romney, for the love of God, please shut up!" :lamo[/QUOTE
I want to see more of this kind of truth telling. If we are going to lose this thing to an empty suit like Obama, I want us to go down fighting the good fight, not to be edged out because we came in second trying the lies and propaganda like the DEMs use.
And yes, I oppose direct donations from Corporations to a campaign. But Corporate CEOs have to please their boards, and the public, while keeping up with the latest rules piled on by the government. I find it completely valid that they should lobby the government for sensible review of regulations by pointing out effects that the boys in the WH and congress don't understand about the operation of their businesses in the real world.
However they should not be allowed to donate directly to the campaign of any government official that they negotiate with.
Now public service unions are a completely different animal. They don't have to please the public at all. Nobody can escape the effects of their incompetence. They don't have to worry about a board of directors either. All they are interested in doing is extricating the maximum amount of money from the public treasury. The contracts they 'negotiate' are the primary reason for the financial crises confronting many cities and states. What the unions are doing is a form of extortion - 'protection money' ==> "pay us or we will let your children go without an education."
Public service unions are a joke. Instituted only to entrench a funding source for Democrats. They are empowered to levy dues on their members (who have no choice as to whether or not to 'join') and they use that money to elect corrupt politicians with whom they will 'negotiate with' for more lucre from the treasury. They don't care that many of their 'members' are forced to finance political agenda that are directly opposite to their own.
NO - even if the Corporate donations are allowed to continue, the capability of public service unions to shovel money to their corrupt political friends is long over due for repeal.
Public service unions are a big part of the problems we face, not only financially, but also for the lousy state of education in America. Teachers unions care not one whit for how well the students are faring. They ONLY care about how much money they can blackmail out of the public treasury.
They should be eliminated. (the unions - not the people.)
Sorry Romney unions are actual people not looking for profit, they are looking out for actual people, and peoples interests within that job such as safety, fair wages, and workers interests.
Not just the teachers' unions, but unions in general. To hold my job, I am required to be a member of, and support the Teamsters' union. And the Teamsters' union goes and spends the money that I am required to pay thereto in dues, to support political causes and candidates that are diametrically opposed to my own views.
Mr. Romney is complete correct about this issue. Not just teachers' unions, but all unions, ought not be allowed to spend members' dues on political campaigns. The unions' job is to represent the workers' interests, in dealing with the employers. Supporting political campaigns does nothing to advance this purpose, and is not an appropriate use of funds obtained from the workers that the union is supposed to represent; especially when these funds are used to support causes and/or candidates which a significant portion of the unions' members would oppose.
Not being in a union I am somewhat uncertain about this but have read some, listened to those who are and understand some. As I understand it 'Communications Workers of America v. Beck every member of a union is entitled to a full refund of their dues that are not directly used for representing them.'
From here: UnionRefund.org
May work, may not...
Do you have sources for that?
This is funny because the things that public workers often seek to accomplish through their unions benefit the public in the long term. For example, teacher's unions may fight for ensuring that every school has art, music, science lab and phys. ed. programs. This not only helps teachers, it also helps students at disadvantaged schools and in turn, the public in general. Similarly, police officers in a city like Chicago where crime has increased since Rahm Emanuel fired a bunch of police officers may fight to increase the police force as a condition of their union contract. This also helps the public.
Now, one could argue that increases in salary and strikes (which rarely happen anyway) are enough to get rid of public unions, but that's not a compelling argument because the public isn't going to look out for teachers and police officers and other public workers when the government tries to screw them over. Therefore, they need to form organizations that enable them to look out for themselves. Unions do that and unless you or other anti-public union citizens are going to fight on behalf of them and stick up for them whenever the government screws with them, then I frankly don't think you have any business telling them or any other workers how to organize.
Wages dont equal profits.
That's fine. I've been looking for sources on how public unions affect private worker wages, benefits and work conditions, but I haven't found much. I have admittedly been a bit lazy in my research though.Both my macro-economics and micro-economics professor (who happened to be the same person LOL). I've seen it other places but do not have a handy source. Within the same business, union wages always pull up non-union wages. It is in places where one business has a strong union and others have no unions. I forget the explanation. Part of it has to do with inflation but the other part has to do with the very best workers going for the higher wage jobs leaving a less productive and therefor less profitable pool of workers for other businesses. Sorry I don't feel like googling wage differentials at this hour.
yeah... neither does government tax revenue.
well that is the union propaganda position on it
Well as long you like it, I can take the disagreement.I like you post, even though I disagree with most of it.
I think that this a fair point, but I ultimately disagree with it.My beef with public service unions is that they are really not susceptible to the public who they are supposed to be serving. Any corporation that ignores its clients will go out of business. A public union can tell the public to STFU and nothing happens to them.
I don't think the contracts public workers negotiate are generally unsustainable although some of them are problematic in the current economy. However, I don't believe that the solution to that problem is to lower salaries or eliminate public unions. I think the solution is to make them sustainable.And it is my contention that the true purpose of a public service union is the obtain employment contracts - especially in the area of pensions and job security - that are just not financially sustainable. The only way they can get this kind of 'obscene' contract is thru control of corrupt politicians. And the way they get a strangle hold on a politician is to finance his campaign.
I think that's a stereotypical view of unions that isn't entirely based in reality. There have been unions that just take money from their members, pay off politicians and are just as corrupt as the government they're bargaining with. That's absolutely true. However, that's not true for all unions and probably not even most unions. Moreover, when unions become that corrupt, their members tend to elect better representatives as is what happened with the Chicago Teacher's Union. The former leaders were essentially part of the Chicago political "machine" and were kind of lazy when it came to actually helping their members, but then the teachers elected new leadership which has been more honest and responsible.The sole reason for the existence of these unions - IMHO - is to extort money from their members to pay off the corrupt politicians. They keep their members in line by lining the members' pockets with benefits that they could not possibly obtain elsewhere.
I am just not a fan of unions of any sort in this day and age. They performed an extremely valuable service when they first came about. At that time they were really most motivated by the plight of the workers. As they solved the problems they were created to correct, they needed another reason to continue their existence. This is when the collusion with corrupt politicians began.
They need to be disbanded - or very tightly regulated. Like the operation of a nuclear power plant, they have the capacity to do enormous damage to the nation.
eace
So please tell me whats the point of unions then? Just to make **** hard on the big guy?
do the least amount of work and get the most amount of pay and benefits
Romney: Teacher contributions to politicians should be limited
I'd tend to agree with him if he wasn't such a ****ing selective jerk about it and made it standardized with all damn money corrupting our political system and not just the ones that his competitors may get.
Ok... Thanks for proving my point.
Mitt shouldn't have any bearring on your beliefs or principles....
Right. I guess the teachers do very little work huh?
I know where you stand on the issue... i'm just yankin' your chain.He doesn't. Mine are in place and I partially agree with him that unions shouldn't contribute to elections... but neither should corporations. I'm sure that while he's hating on the teacher union money in elections he doesn't have any issue with wall street funding him and his superpacs.
I've got issues with both of them trying to buy elections. Being selective is only telling of someone's lack of integrity.
I know where you stand on the issue... i'm just yankin' your chain.
although i'm completely opposite of you on the issue, I can respect the consistency ( unlike the great majority of your leftist brethren, you're pretty consistent and principled)